1947 ford coupe

1936 Ford 5 Window Coupe

1936 Ford 5 Window Coupe

The Communists communist party of great britain (marxist-leninist) Argentina Role of the IMF in impoverishing countries – the case of Argentina How the imperialists use the debt trap to loot the wealth of and enforce their hegemony over oppressed nations.
Imposed by executives in sharp suits and air conditioned offices, the conditions attached to IMF ‘loans’ (funds that very rarely reach the people of an indebted country) amount to a brutal war on the poor and a demand that all the resources of their country should be funnelled to the corporate bloodsuckers in the imperialist heartlands.
The International Monetary Fund (IMF) was founded at the Bretton Woods conference in July 1944. This financial agency presents an image of itself as a democratic organisation that works “to achieve sustainable growth and prosperity for all of its 190 member countries … by supporting economic policies that promote financial stability and monetary cooperation”. Nothing could be further from reality, however. Not only is the IMF not a democratic organisation but, as this article will show, the policies that it promotes favour only a handful of countries. The decisions of the IMF are related to the ownership of SDRs (special drawing rights), known as the ‘quota’, which by reflecting the relative position of a country in the world economy, determines its voting power. Thanks to this self-perpetuating formula, the United States commands 16.5 percent of IMF votes, while the G7 countries combined (Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, United Kingdom, United States) command 41.25 percent. In a nutshell, the imperialist countries collectively, and in practice the dominant US imperialists, decide IMF policies, while the 171 non-imperialist countries that together hold less than half of the votes, have to obey them. The cure-all panacea of the IMF for any economy has always been ‘austerity’. In bourgeoise economic lingo, this is euphemistically referred to as ‘fiscal consolidation’ – a process aimed at ‘closing the gap’ between public income and public expenditure. In plain language, this inevitably means slashing pensions, healthcare and education services; cutting the salaries of doctors, teachers and other public servants; selling off publicly owned companies to international investors; cutting taxes to the benefit of corporations and banks; and implementing a raft of macroeconomic policies that will favour international finance capital. To implement these policies, the IMF relies on a so-called ‘surveillance process’, defined as “monitoring the economic and financial policies of member countries and providing them with policy advice … by recommending appropriate policy adjustments”. This in turn must be facilitated by a suitably servile comprador bourgeoise, whose members are willing to assist in this process of looting in return for a few tasty morsels from the imperialist banqueting table, all while the masses are being reduced to destitution. In his powerful The Open Veins of Latin America, Eduardo Galeano pointed out: “With the magical incantation of ‘monetary stabilisation’, the IMF – which not disinterestedly confuses the fever with the disease, inflation with the crisis of existing structures – has imposed on Latin America a policy that accentuates imbalances instead of easing them … liberalises trade by banning direct exchanges … forces the contraction of internal credits … freezes wages, discourages state activity. To this programme it adds sharp monetary devaluations.” (1971, p220) The people of Latin America, Africa and Asia have been suffering from IMF-imposed austerity for decades. For Argentina, the story of deception via its external debt started earlier. In 1824, Buenos Aires negotiated a loan with Britain’s Baring Brothers & Co bank. From the £1m agreed, the country received only £570,000 – not in gold as had been agreed but in paper notes agreeing the sale of British commodities at a price of their choosing! The interest on this extremely one-sided loan soaked up most of the country’s revenues for several decades. After successive rounds of refinancing the, ‘loan’ had been inflated to £4m, and was finally paid off 124 years after it was taken out by the government of Juan Perón in 1947. At the time of writing, yet another debt crisis is creating the conditions for the complete collapse of Argentina’s economy. As has happened at other times of harsh neoliberal austerity regimes (1976-83, 1989-99 and 2015-19), Argentina looks as though it is heading for bankruptcy. The military junta and Argentina’s first neoliberal experiment The military coup of March 1976 provided the opportunity to implement neoliberal policies for the first time in Argentina. During the junta’s rule (1976-83), the country’s industrial base was destroyed, 20,000 manufacturing businesses were closed, and the value added by Argentinean industry, including construction, as a percentage of GDP dropped from 50.89 in 1976 to 41.55 percent in 1983. As a result, the once strong and organised proletariat, which had fought fiercely against dictatorships earlier in the century, disappeared and many workers’ rights were eliminated. As the country moved from production to financial profiteering, the masses were impoverished as the country’s wealth was hoovered up by big corporations and international financial institutions. Before being kidnaped and murdered, Argentine writer Rodolfo Walsh wrote to the military junta: “The economic policies of this junta – which follow the formula of the International Monetary Fund that has been applied indiscriminately to Zaire and Chile, to Uruguay and Indonesia – recognise only the following as beneficiaries: the old ranchers’ oligarchy; the new speculating oligarchy; and a select group of international monopolies headed by ITT, Esso, the automobile industry, US Steel, and Siemens, which Minister Martinez de Hoz and his entire cabinet have personal ties to.” (24 March 1977) During this process, thousands of Argentineans were detained, tortured and killed, and people around the globe learned a new word: “desaparecidos” (the disappeared). Thanks to the good will of the IMF, Argentina’s external debt grew from $7.9bn in 1976 to $46bn in 1983. As one of its last acts in government, the junta nationalised all private debt, making the people of the country responsible for loans taken out by bankers and landowners. Unable to pay this huge debt, Argentina has never been in a ‘normal’ state since; its ‘external debt’ became an ‘eternal debt’, dictating every aspect of economic and social life. Democracy returns but the eternal debt remains In 1983, the first democratically elected government following the junta decided not to reject the external debt inherited dictatorship but to honour it. Thus the government of Raúl Alfonsín, which had incarcerated the junta criminals for their human rights abuses continued the junta’s policy of surrendering control of the economy to the IMF and its monitoring missions. As Fidel Castro correctly pointed out in 1985: “How can a government and a country that has to go every month to discuss with the International Monetary Fund what it is able to do at home be called independent? It is a fiction of independence, and we see this as a national-liberation struggle, which can truly bring together, and for the first time in the history of our hemisphere, all social strata in a struggle to achieve true independence.” Between 1984-88, IMF-imposed policies continued to be enacted, to the benefit of imperialist corporations and financiers. The result was that, despite some success in curbing inflation for a short period in 1985-86, the economy never recovered. In 1989, the Alfonsín government’s last year in office, the IMF withdrew financial support to Argentina in response to missed interest payments, pushing the country into a crisis. Inflation became hyperinflation (reaching a high of more than 3,000 percent annually) and elections were called six months early. In the end, thanks to the recommended policies of the IMF, the debt continued to grow from the $46bn that had been inherited in 1983 to $65bn in 1989. Everything was ready for a second neoliberal experiment. How a popular leader become a neoliberal After the failure of the Alfonsín government, the new president was elected on a platform of social justice, promising to defend jobs, salaries and publicly-owned companies, and to improve the life of millions in the tradition of Peronism. Having been installed in office, however, he changed sides and become the president of the landowners, big corporations and banks. With the support of the IMF, Carlos Menem (1989-99) implemented the recommendations of the ‘Washington consensus’ and applied the mantra of neoliberalism: privatisations, cuts to social expenditure, and further opening of the economy. The first step was to sell off all the publicly-owned companies that had been created through the efforts of several generations of Argentinians. Gas, oil, electricity, telephone, water, airlines and railroads all disappeared as public assets, their wealth being transferred so as to make foreign corporations and corrupt politicians richer at the expense, once again, of the Argentine people. This was followed by a cut in public social expenditure via reductions in spending on education, healthcare and social security, and via the privatisation of state-held pensions assets. Finally, the import duties were slashed, to the benefit of overseas monopoly corporations, allowing foreign goods to flood Argentina’s internal market. The consequent destruction of Argentinean industry, as initiated by the military junta, was now complete. To sustain these policies, the government set a one-to-one exchange rate between the US dollar and the local currency (known as the convertibility law), allowing foreign investors to exchange dollars for pesos, invest the pesos at an interest rate higher than the global IRR (internal rate of return) and then, months later, convert the pesos back to dollars. This operation, known as carry-trade, favoured big investors from around the world to the further detriment of the country’s finances, and was supported by the IMF, which continued lending money to Argentina. In the final years of the Menem government, the country’s economy deteriorated rapidly, poverty and inflation increased, and the country fell into a deep recession in 1998. Corruption was rampant, and anti-government resistance through the first organised cacerolazos (people making noise by banging pots or pans to protest) was on the rise. The IMF had done its job well. During this period, Argentina’s external debt grew to 133 percent of GDP, from $65bn in 1989 to $152bn ten years later. The second neoliberal experiment was reaching its end. Elections and the 2001 collapse The next government arrived promising to resolve the economic crises and fight corruption. Under the direction of the IMF, however, it continued to apply all the same policies that had failed the country before. In August 2001, as foreign deposits were leaving the country, Argentina was unable to pay the interest on its debt and requested an extension of the arrangement. IMF managing director Horst Köhler demanded the substitution of the local currency by the US dollar, and while the government hesitated, the IMF withdrew support. As the economy plummeted, money withdrawals increased, and the government decided to freeze all bank deposits (a measure known as the corralito). Popular protest increased and, incapable of resolving the crisis, the government announced a state of siege. During the ensuing December riots, 36 people were killed by police in the streets. President Fernando de la Rua (1989-2001) resigned on 20 December, and the crisis-hit country had five presidents during the two weeks that followed. Under the slogan “All of them must go!” (Que se vayan todos!), millions of people participated in neighbourhood assemblies, occupying unused land and implementing workers’ self-management in hundreds of factories. In the end, Argentina defaulted on its public debt (at that time $152bn), abandoned the fixed exchange rate by devaluing the peso (40 percent in January to around 300 percent at the end of the first semester of 2002), with the result that production collapsed and high levels of unemployment and poverty become the norm. IMF out of Argentina After the 2001 default, the new government of Nestor Kirchner (2003-07) developed a strategy for undermining the neoliberal agenda that had been responsible for the country’s economic collapse. His government worked to eliminate the permanent interference, recommendations and pressure from the IMF. In 2005, to the dismay of the financial centres, the President Hugo Chávez strengthened Venezuela’s relationship with Argentina. The Bolivarian government bought $2.4bn of Argentina’s debt, providing a welcome boost to the central bank reserves and helping the country to break its dependency on the IMF for debt refinancing. By repaying in full the $9.81bn owed to the IMF, Argentina gained financial independence from the institution’s endless negotiations and recommendations, all of which were unfailingly unfavourable in social and economic terms to Argenina’s people. The repayment followed a similar move by President Lula da Silva of Brazil, whose Workers party government had paid off its IMF debt in full two days earlier. For the first time, Latin America’s two largest economies were in a position to develop social policies that would improve the life of their people. As President Kirchner pointed out: “With this payment, we bury an ignominious past of eternal, infinite indebtedness.” The volume of the inherited external debt didn’t change with the payment to the IMF, but it did allow the government to pursue more independent policies. During the 12-year Kirchner period (Nestor Kirchner’s presidency [2003-07] was followed by two terms of office for his wife Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner [2007-11 and 2011-15]), Argentina implemented economic measures outside the neoliberal toolbox and built a political consensus through a discourse of social justice, economic independence and national autonomy. The economy improved, with GDP up by 62 percent and the value of exports by 81 percent. Unemployment and poverty were significantly reduced, and the government renationalised some of the key sectors that had been privatised during the neoliberal years, the most relevant being Argentina’s national oil company (YPF). The Kirchner government also restructured 93 percent of the country’s foreign debt, on it had defaulted in 2001. A small group of ‘vulture funds’ had acquired credit default swaps (CDS) against Argentinean bonds and $1.3bn of the bonds’ total value for cents, and they pursued the country via various courts in an unceasing quest for full payment. Much to the imperialists’ chagrin, the Kirchner governments never gave in to the vulture funds’ rapacity. Return of the IMF In 2015, the Peronist movement went to the elections divided into different factions, and the election was won by Mauricio Macri (2015-19) supported by a right-wing neoliberal coalition. A third neoliberal experiment was begun in Argentina. During the first 60 days of his government, President Macri paid off the vulture funds, reversed most of the social policies implemented during the Kirchner period, and reintroduced the carry-trade policies that had failed the country in the past – all to the benefit of international finance capital. To fund this massive transfer of wealth, the government increased its external debt once more, from $153bn at the end of 2014 to $280bn in 2019 – an increase of 83 percent in only four years! In June 2018, the Macri government asked the IMF for help, reaching an agreement on a 36-month stand-by arrangement (SBA) amounting to US$50bn (equivalent to about 1,110 percent of Argentina’s quota in the IMF), what has become known as the biggest loan ever in the history of the IMF. IMF managing director Christine Lagarde congratulated the Argentine authorities on reaching this agreement, stating: “The plan owned and designed by the Argentine government is aimed at strengthening the economy for the benefit of all Argentines.” The speed with which the agreement was reached led many to speculate that the intervention of US president Donald Trump in support of the loan was aimed at helping Macri to win the upcoming 2019 elections, giving him some leeway to make investments in social infrastructure. Nothing was further from reality, however: none of the promised schools, hospitals or roads were ever built. The money disappeared in capital flight, in paying dividends to overseas corporations, and in boosting the profit margins of financial institutions. As even the IMF’s own ex-post facto evaluation report admitted: “The programme did not deliver on its objectives … mounting redemptions, along with capital flight by residents, put considerable pressure on the exchange rate.” The result was that “the exchange rate continued to depreciate, increasing inflation and the peso value of public debt, weakening real incomes, especially of the poor”. In 2019, the Peronist ‘Frente de Todos’ (Alberto Fernandez and Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner) coalition won the elections for the period 2019-23, and millions hoped for the reversal of Macri’s policies. Sadly, it was not to be. Failure of the Fernandez government Right at the outset, the new government committed a cardinal sin. Instead of repudiating Macri’s IMF agreement, it accepted this vast inherited debt. The ideological limitations of Peronism were clearly revealed, and became a major obstacle to country’s development and to the welfare of millions of Argentinean people. Accepting the IMF agreement, and without any investigation into how this vast sum had been used, the government accepted IMF monitoring missions and found itself forced to limit its plans to implement progressive macroeconomic policies, conduct an independent foreign policy and invest in social services. Recognition of the IMF debt put the government into a trap, as had happened so many times in the past, and Argentine once again became a slave to impossible repayment commitments. The clock for the next economic crisis was ticking again. According to the government, the main causes of the economic debacle were the three consecutive years of drought that affected agricultural production, the mandatory lockdown and social distancing measures for the Covid pandemic, and to a lesser extent the war in Europe. But government and bourgeois politicians of all stripes failed to acknowledge the core of the problem: the IMF and the external debt that had been taken on by the previous government. Neoliberal policies return to Argentina with a vengeance With the victory of Javier Milei (2023), Argentina is returning once again to the bad old days, beginning its fourth neoliberal experiment. During the first days of the Milei government, the local currency was devaluated by 100 percent, public investment in infrastructure was suspended, barriers to the import of goods and services were removed with no consideration to the impact on jobs, energy prices were raised, subsidies for the poorest were reduced, and thousands of public employees were made redundant. At the same time, a complete alliance was declared with the USA, and now Israel, the country’s planned entry into the Brics group was cancelled, and a vociferous discourse was mounted against every progressive government in the region. The IMF was delighted. As director of communications Julie Kozack stated in December 2023: “IMF staff welcome the measures announced earlier today by Argentina’s new economy minister Luis Caputo. These bold initial actions aim to significantly improve public finances in a manner that protects the most vulnerable in society and strengthens the foreign exchange regime. Their decisive implementation will help stabilise the economy and set the basis for more sustainable and private sector-led growth.” In reality, of course, these measures are resulting in mass impoverishment, as reported by the Social Debt Observatory of the UCA (Catholic University of Argentina), which has declared poverty to be at a 20-year high (57.4 percent). This means that 27 million people are now considered poor in Argentina, while extreme poverty is affecting 15 percent of the population. Through a 664-clause bill, President Milei is pushing for further reforms that will destroy the existing social and economic structure of the country in favour of landowners, international corporations and finance capital. The bill will erase worker’s rights that have taken decades to achieve, while also curtailing the right to protest – with penalties of up to six years in prison for participants and organisers of demonstrations. By declaring a state of emergency, Milei is demanding absolute power to govern without the involvement of Congress, following in the steps of Adolf Hitler, who in 1933 pushed the Nazis’ Enabling Act through the Reichstag, granting himself absolute power to make and enforce laws without further parliamentary involvement. Right-wing backbenchers support the bill, while other sections of Argentina’s bourgeois political parties are testing the waters, sometimes mildly confronting the bill or requesting minor changes. Although the majority of backbenchers for UxP (Union por la Patria) are opposed to the bill, changing sides is not an unknown feature of bourgeois political life. Unable to trust backbenchers, Argentina’s main CGT (General Confederation of Workers) trade union has appealed successfully to the National Labour Court, challenging the constitutionality of the labour legislation contained in the proposed law. Since President Milei is refusing to accept any change to the proposed bill, even his supporters are rethinking their position in each of the bill’s clauses. In the latest developments, after some defeats the bill was sent back for further study, constituting a temporary defeat for the government. But this is a war against the people and there is no place or time for complacency. Without a clear political direction, the masses of Argentina are marching again, as in the economic crisis of 2001, to defend their basic rights. Within two months of the installation of a new government, cacerolazos and demonstrations had become the new normality. Those progressive forces who are debating whether or not the time is ripe to confront the government, would do well to remember the apt observation of Juan Perón: “People will march with their leaders at the head or with the heads of the leaders.”

Plans to coup the government
Last time we established rising tensions in France. Coup plotter started already in November, cooperating with the CIA (with instructions from president elected MacArthur). Since events in February and transformation of SDECE into DGSI anti-communist conspirators suffered major blow. French authorities looked with suspicion towards Gaullists and their allies and weakened their position and foreign connections. Gaullists were preparing their own coup, but simultaneously several generals and veterans of the Indochina war were preparing their own. Both sides did not know about each other. CIA and MI6 aided both groups and considered them both part of the same plot. DGSI managed to uncover parts of Gaullist's plot and did not know about Salan's one. With the destruction of the spy centre in SDECE, plotters were pressured to act quickly, it was only a matter of time, when communists would uncover their activity. Charles De Gaulle was already strictly watched by DGSI. Salan counted with the support of other right-wing elements, his plan was simple: Take power, then restore the presidential republic and install most likely general De Gaulle as puppet head of it.
The Coup
Funeral of Stalin was a major opportunity for putschists. As Thorez together with other high-ranking communists left for Moscow already on 7 March. Salan together with the CIA urged to launch the coup now. Preparations for action itself were thus rushed and in many parts improvised.
3:00-4:00 putschist paratroopers (only weaker and not numerous units, tanks and more units stayed behind Paris) go into Paris, they quickly capture Parliament, the main radio stations, PCF office building (empty at that time) and Élysée Palace. However, they fail to capture communist newspaper office, which proves one of the main mistakes. Salan bases HQ in Élysée Palace. Fights in radio are broadcasted by its workers who refused to give it to the military, they call all for help, shooting it's clearly heard in the last broadcast, leading to widespread belief (later proved false) that these workers were executed.
4:30 Radio and newspaper declaration of the Committee of Public Safety is issued. Salan informs about the creation of a provisional government led by the military to “restore order” and “protect French democracy and constitution” from communist takeover. Together with that, the resignation of President Auriol is announced. In this statement Auriol speaks about “drastic, but necessary moves” and speaks against violence (he actually wants to collaborate with Salan against Thorez)
Early morning: Issue of newspapers, communists and leftist newspapers change their headlines and inform people about the coup while calling people to resist the “violent reactionary coup of Salan’s clique”, similar statements are also issued by free radio, operating from the countryside. Both minister of interior Charles Tillon, minister of defence Laurent Casanova and chief of staff Henri Rol-Tanguy, weren’t captured, because they were not located in places putschists expected them to be, another major failure. The French Army was ordered to fight against putschist forces, as did DSGI. Charles Tillon also called for a popular uprising in the newspaper. Thorez was awakened by this time, and still did not react and instead rushed to Soviets for advice. De Gaulle was sleeping in his home, around 5 in the morning, when he was visited by several men from DGSI as the suspected coup leader. Visibly shocked and confused, the general pledged he is not connected to this in any way. He spoke with Tillon on the phone; communists vaguely offered him cooperation and division of power. Later, he was also contacted by Salan who offered him installation as president. General responded vaguely to both proposals, it is unknown what exactly. Both sides interpreted it as approval.
5:00-7:00 as more and more people wake up; spontaneous demonstrations started and grew more massive. CGT met up around 6:30 and declared an immediate general strike and a statement about clear worker’s loyalty to the Thorez government. During these Putschist soldiers shoot several demonstrators leading to outrage, people start to arm themselves by CGT and PCF (People’s Guards – GP Garde populaire). Fights, violence and bloodshed erupts in Paris, People’s Guards soon vastly outnumber sent garrisons as also parts of police join anti-coup forces.
7:00 Meanwhile, long announced Thorez directives and speech comes. His speech is broadcasted by dissent radio, calling for resistance, he also proclaims himself as acting president. He had to act on his own, because from Soviet leaders he received very confusing and mixed responses. While party leader Nikita Khruschev called for revolution and promised full Soviet backing including military intervention, premier Malenkov advocated caution and wished for a peaceful solution and MGB under Beria called it “internal matter of France”. Internally, Beria opposed any intervention in France and wanted to let it under Western influence to appease them, while Khruschev wished for formation of socialist state. Thorez decides to fly back to France.
Another announcement comes from vice-premier Pierre Mendès France, who calls for peace and negotiations, while leaders of RPF and the Third Force coalition give their reluctant approval for the coup.
7:30 Pro-Salan units prepared near Paris are sent to crush demonstrations. Barricades are set up to prevent their entry. Vast parts of Paris were controlled by resistance. Simultaneously troops loyal to the ministry of defence start to move from the North towards the city and secure control over territories.
8:00 US government recognizes Salan as leader of France, first US military aid arrives in putschist controlled ports, several hours later.
At 9:30 putschist tanks arrive in Paris and start the assault, soon violent clashes at barricades result in many deaths, but they don’t break the barricades at first. In the forenoon Revolutionary Workers and Students Council is formed and takes over political life in Paris, loyal units also arrive to strengthen the barricades. Salan declares martial law.
The Civil War
Ante meridiem chaos spreads countrywide. Worker strikes and communist revolutionaries take over factories and many local governments, in some cities, towns and villages opposite happens and anti-communists purge communists. First fights between opposing militants. The French Anti-Communist Legion is formed (LAF – Légion anticommuniste française), anti-communist paramilitary. Military units are in a state of chaos, officers clash amongst each other, soldiers decide to join opposite factions. Usually, it goes according to units’ allegiance, and several fights erupt. Major events happen in Lyon, where the local council is controlled by communists, who arm locals to rise against the military. Eventually the majority of soldiers rebel against the unit commander and join the communist forces. Vast majority of the navy pledge allegiance to the putschists, only those ships where its sailors take power from the officers, change sides. Widespread railway strikes and barricaded roads are major obstacles for putschist forces, it is hard to move to destination, problems with guerrilla attacks with Molotov cocktails etc. Both sides suffer from friendly fire as both government and putschist forces proudly wave French flags only and have the same uniforms or are civilians with guns. Communist forces started to wear red armbands later on.
Afternoon: Political moves to solve the crisis. Charles De Gaulle re-enters the scene and attempts to install himself as a provisional leader to end the civil war and restore order. He denounces violence and both putschist and communist governments in a radio address. He gained support of the political establishment and part of officers that remained yet undecided. Communists refuse it as they see him as another dictator, while Salan rejects it too as he wants De Gaulle first to recognize his government (and as he is closely linked with the US, Americans support Salan over De Gaulle too). Salan also feels betrayed by this as he counted with De Gaulle joining forces with him. De Gaulle has the support of many Frenchmen and hopes he can at least end this catastrophe; however, it was too late, and this attempt ended in vain. Another proposal was a “unity government” that was rejected by both parties. The strongest fights are in Paris. As also government loyalist troops arrived, it was a full-blown battle that continued also in the night.
In the Evening Thorez arrived in Germany, crossing to France is now risky as territorial control is unclear in the region and French zone in the UNMG. After his arrival he issues the Frankfurt Declaration, stating that “French people have to crush the murderous reactionary clique backed by American imperialists” and also words that would end up being misunderstood and later pretend to be intentional “continue revolutionary tradition of the French people and uphold the democratic and socialist France against reactionary plots.” It is understood as a call to full-blown socialist revolution and the next day people act according to it.
It is a chaotic mess, but to sum it up: The Ministry of Defence controlled by the first day of the civil war mostly these regions: Hauts-de-France and Picardie. Lightly contested government holds: Nord-Pas-de-Calais, Alsace, Basse-Normandie. Most contested regions with active fights: Ile de France, Rhone-Alpes, Region Sud, Languedoc-Roussillon and Champagne. Putschist forces control: Bretagne, Pays-de-la Loire, Poitou-Charentes, Aquitaine, Lorraine, Saarland. Lightly contested putschist hold: Centre, Bourgogne and Midi-Pyrénées. Areas without any significant presence of either military forces or without active fights between them: Limousin, Auvergne, Franche-Comte and Corsica.
10.3. Fights continue, start of full-blown hot civil war. Government forces launch an offensive in the Grand Est region to secure control of the border with Germany. Thorez declares martial law too. Battle of northeast France is the first major campaign of the civil war; Salan redirects some units from Paris there.
11.3. Key victory of the government forces in Paris and Ille de France. Salan and his government fled to Orléans. Government continues its offensive in the northeast. Thorez is flown to Paris by aircraft in a risky move in the evening. His presence is surprising and boosts morale.
Issue is the French zone in the UN zone. Units there remained unaligned. Both sides play each other and have its sympathisers here, communist utilise Germans for their goal. Thorez in Germany issues a proclamation that uses a loophole in the UN zone institution (that France has sole rights in their zone) and gives territorial control over the UN to Germany. Question whatever this is valid or not. French communists organise German protests for reunification. German Local Committee formed by SED takes over territory (13.3.), French units there give weapons to communists and surrender. Key move to gain access to Soviet aid. Trains full of weapons go to France through.
12.3.-13.3. Communist victory in the battle of northeast France. Frontline stabilises, rival militaries takeover all parts of the country by now. More uprising and local pockets. Major fights in previously contested or non-controlled parts of France (with exception of Corsica, that is secured by putschists), lightly held territories are solidified. Borders with Belgium aren’t still controlled by communists, while putschists gained control over borders with Switzerland, Italy and Spain. US and Italian involvement increase. The Soviet sent more weapons. Khrushchev proposes full intervention, while Beria opposes. These events are also important for Germany, we will get to the international implications later.
14.3. US proposes “French Resolution” it condemns French communists for violence and proposes UN peacekeeping forces to France, led by US and supporting Salan. The Soviet Union vetoed it and then presented their own resolution proposing the opposite on the next day, blocked by the rest of the Security council.
Late March: Solidified frontlines, communists try to push towards south to connect with other units.
After communist advances towards Orléans, Salan moved his government to Bordeaux, a key port and safe military stronghold deep in controlled territories (18.3.). Now styled as “Provisional Government of the French Republic” (GPRF), Salan becomes its prime minister. Majority parts RPF are brought there together with PRL, RGR and parts of MRP in hopes of organising a sort of democratic right-wing government, however, are used just as puppets by the junta. Position of president is (yes again) offered to Charles De Gaulle, who rejects it. Eventually Michel Debré is selected. Simultaneously Pierre Poujade, Jean-Louis Tixier-Vignancour, Jeune Nation and other far-right people join them. PCF and PSIF are banned and declared foreign agents.
After Thorez’s return to Paris, major political reforms happened. Several decrees, major important are: on nationalisation, on land reform, on revolutionary committees (legalisation of previous communist revolutions in various parts of the country), and the most infamous decree on protection of the constitutional revolution (20.3.) that established infamous People’s Revolutionary Tribunals (5 member groups allowed to carry execution without trials) and started massive purges of reactionaries, collaborators and vaguely defined “enemies of the people” from all functions and positions. Change to previous lore there is not yet declaration of the French Socialist Republic, only change in government and they still claim to be the Fourth Republic. Now stylised as “Constitutional-Revolutionary Government of the French Republic '' (GRCRF). 15.3. Thorez is officially inaugurated as president and Tillon becomes the prime minister, with some minor ministerial changes. In May rump parliament was recalled to Paris, consisting only of PCF, PSIF, independents and even some SFIO deputies. Parties aligned with GPRF are banned. This parliament institutionalised government decrees. Reforms are put into effect by the army and militias.
French civil war is brutal, LAF murders any suspected (key word) communists and their families without mercy during their night raids on villages, while Revolutionary Tribunals execute everyone around suspected of being counterrevolutionary or LAF supporter and also landlords and capitalists refusing to give up their property. But large military units engagements are quite rare, rather a lesser skirmishes.
In May, southern and northern GRCRF forces unite and stabilise their territory. Soviet aid increases. The US reacts with sending more undercover troops to France (they wear French uniforms and pretend to be French, but the majority of them don't even understand French).
May Decree and the Algerian National Revolution
Already during the Thorez’s famous after his return to Paris France is declared to be a nation without colonies and promises after the victory of “Forces of Peace, Democracy and Progress” all colonial status will be abolished and also urges colonial people to take their arms against reactionaries. Newspaper announces it everywhere, but authorities censor this message heavily. Start of the first protests and rebellions. 1st of May the “Colonial Liberation Decree” (also as May Decree or Labour Day Decree) is issued by Paris government, it in detail announces decolonisation and gives to all colonies and Algeria independence, with immediate validity. Key moment in the history of the colonial and post-colonial World. Salan junta tries to stop spreading of this information and local colonial authorities declare this Decree immediately null void (due to being from “illegitimate government”). About detailed response to this later, but we need to visit Algeria right now.
Salan’s declaration of martial law also applied in Algeria. Later, 13. In March, promised elections to the local assembly were cancelled. This led to massive anger from locals. As the front in France needed reinforcements, GPRF recalled the majority of garrisons from Algeria during April. After the May Decree, Algerians started planning a massive uprising, they wanted to take advantage of fighting in France and weakness of garrisons, National Liberation Army was formed and joined forces with local communists. Declaration of Independence of Algeria on 1 June 1953 (by FLN) followed by national-wide uprising and attacks. Due to the weak French presence Algerians saw great success and secured large parts of countryside and several major cities. Paris recognised Algeria as an independent country in June. Salan had to relocate a significant number of troops to deal with the uprising, another major blow to his war effort against communists.
Victory of the Revolution
In June GRCRF starts western offensive to push GPRF out. Despite American involvement, GPRF defences are broken by GRCRF and Salan ordered a retreat to Algeria on 12 August 1953.
In the epilogue of the mainland conflict, communist forces invaded and occupied Monaco on 28 August 1953 (Monaco cooperated with TATO in support of the putschists and gave refuge to their soldiers and supporters). Paris demanded Principality to extradite them to Paris, but they refused. As the army marched in the Monacan People’s Committee was formed by local workers with French orders, they declared themselves the legal government and abolished monarchy. In a staged referendum people of Monaco voted for unification with France (30 October 1953) This “People’s Republic of Monaco” existed as a de facto independent state until its official annexation after the French Socialist Republic was formed.
In December (8 to 20) there was an attempt to invade Corsica by airborne troops but failed due to very high military presence and Italian air support.
Humanitarian Catastrophe
Civil War leads to a large humanitarian crisis. Effects of which on specific countries will be specified later. Targets of refugees: Belgium and Switzerland (largest part), Italy, Algeria/Corsica, United Kingdom and Canada. More than 1,000,000 refugees. Since June borders were closed for those without permits.
​
https://preview.redd.it/aahm30pvw53d1.png?width=520&format=png&auto=webp&s=e37bcd037a2d7c769e8829d66710b30ff912acd6
AFERMACH (1953-1954)
French Socialist Republic or the “France-Paris”
Situation calms down and normalises during autumn, radical reforms continue, their harsh implementation is mitigated, Revolutionary tribunals are Dismantled (25 September). Revolutionary atmosphere still controls the whole country, various societal changes, and the promotion of socialist realism.
10 November 1953 new constitution was adopted – start of the French Socialist Republic, France is officially a socialist state, PCF obtains leading role, reformed administrative division, ministries and new National Assembly. Flag remains the same tricolour (to keep legitimacy), but a new coat of arms (variation with coat of arms exists and is often used, but it is not the official national flag). Political life and parties are also reformed, all organisations became part of the “National Popular Front” (FPN). PSIF and SFIO unite into the French Socialist Party (PSF), remnants of Gaullists and Christian democrats are allowed to form United Republican Party (UPR). 29 January 1954 election with one ballot.
In 1954, the start of voluntary collectivisation, new trials with supporters of the old regime and war criminals. Reforms of the military (French People’s Army, Air Force and Navy) with Soviet help and focus on militarisation. France joins CMEA.
In Autumn 1953 remnants of Salanist army and ACL were reformed into anti-communist guerrilla and terrorist group Organisation armée secrete (OAS, Organisation of the Secret Army), they are backed and equipped by Spain, Italy and the US. In 1954 the first terrorist attacks in other parts of France started. Continued insurgency and terrorist attacks in the Alps and Pyrenees are relatively strong, and France has to commit many forces to combat them.
French Republic or the “France-Algiers”
Truly one of the countries of the World.
Returning troops mean large problems for Algerians and they have to retreat to better positions, French push them away from major centres, but they keep control over many parts of the countryside. War continues.
Attempt to gain more people as settlers in attempt to solidify Algeria as French settler colony, similarities with Israel. This is mildly successful. However, majorly nonpolitical refugees are not interested in support of Salan and don’t want to move to another warzone and so they went mostly to Belgium, Italy and Switzerland.
25 June 1954: New constitution is adopted; the country is transformed into a presidential republic. Salan is unanimously elected by the Assembly as President. Transition to “civilian rule”. Toa address flag issue: officially only the tricolour is used, however (mostly in socialist bloc and later in popular culture) state flag with letters “RF” is used to represent it, unlike the flag of Socialist Republic, this one was used very rarely by the actual Salan’s regime. Creation of dual citizenship for French (full rights, can vote) and non-French citizens (not full rights, cannot vote or run for office), followed by several séparation laws aimed at Algerians (1954-1957), inspired by South Africa and the American south.
Other reforms brought by the constitution were colonial, the French Union was transformed into the French Community, in which colonies either became a direct part of France (departments or territories) or autonomous colonies (called as associate state). This was done by talks between local and French representatives during the Abidjan Conference (20 April to 21 May 1954)
FRENCH AFRICA
Note: Further autonomy and creation of local territorial governments Loi-cadre Thorez (23 September 1952).
Independentists, occupations
Guinea – In response to the May Decree, local independence-advocate Ahmed Sékou Touré declared independence of Republic of Guinea (26 May 1953), as the first former European colony in Africa. He proclaimed himself acting president, his position was confirmed in a legislative election (still free) in which PDG-RDA won in a landslide (17 October 1953). Touré recognised the Paris government and Guinean troops expelled weak French garrisons. New country aligned with socialist bloc and post-colonial states and became early examples for African independence and Pan-Africanism. Salan of course did not recognise this move, Guinea was even invited to talks about the status of Guinea in the Empire, but Touré rejected it as representative of a sovereign state. France was busy with Algeria and invading Guinea was not priority for them at this time, but Salan was not intending to let them leave, resulting in an attempted invasion (30 March – 2 August 1955) which was repealed by the Guianese military, due to French underestimation of the enemy.
Chad – June 1952, in local election nationalist Chadian Progressive Party, united in alliance with other parties against dominant conservative Chadian Democratic Union, won. Gabriel Lisette became prime minister. He as other African leaders watched events with interest but did not make moves first. French control in Chad was not restored by time of the Constitutional debates, Chad became an associate state, however Lisette declared independence of the Republic of Chad and recognised the Paris government just a day later (26 June 1954) irritating French authorities. France supported a failed coup in 1954 and then financed and directly militarily supported the rebellion led by Islamist Ahmed Hassan Musa since 1955.
Mauritania – Moktar Ould Daddah, leader of Mauritanian Progressive Union, followed a similar pattern as Chad, he attended the Abidjan Conference and then declared Mauritania independent (1 July 1954). He supported Algerians, which was unacceptable for the French, who invaded the country (2-9 October 1954). Daddah’s supporters formed a not so strong guerrilla resistance. N'Diaye Sidi el Moktar was installed as prime minister. Commissioner: Albert Jean Mouragues
Dahomey – In 1952 nationalist Republican Party of Dahomey led by Sourou Migan Apithy won local elections. Dahomey became an associate state and eventually Apithy declared independence of Republic of Dahomey (9 July 1953) and recognised the Paris government. France intervened in the country's politics and would later stage a successful coup in 1957.
Congo – Congolese independence left-wing activist Jean Félix-Tchicaya (Progressive Party of Congo) reacted to May Decree with official recognition of Paris government and declaration of independence of the Republic of Congo (6 June 1953), he was however opposed by substantial part of his party, that ended up splitting. Pro-French part formed UDDIA under Fulbert Youlou, they recognised Salan’s government, wanted to participate in Abidjan Conference, which Tchicaya rejected. Youlou went there, claiming to be Congo representative and called for French intervention, in response to this UDDIA was banned. French forces invaded Congo from Benin (20 September 1954 – 1 October 1954) and quickly occupied it, installing French administration under Fulbert Youlou. Some of Tchicaya supporters formed guerrilla Congo National Liberation Movement (MLNC), starting the Congolese War for Independence. Commissioner: Paul Louis Gabriel Chauvet.
French Sudan->Mali – Modibo Keïta (US-RDA) declared independence of the Republic of Mali in response to the May Decree and the fall of mainland to Thorez government (25 August 1953), however Keïta decided to participate in the Abidjan Conference under French pressure but rejected the associate state status. Mali was invaded by French Senegalese troops and quickly occupied, due to lack of any formal military (14-18 August 1954). Mali was united into the West African Union with Senegal after.
Cameroon – Ruben Um Nyobè, leader of the Union of the Peoples of Cameroon declared independence of the Republic of Cameroon after the May Decree (10 May 1953) and recognised the Paris government, denouncing military coup. Start of the Cameroonian Revolution, weak French units were driven out of the country by a popular uprising. Félix-Roland Moumié became the first president and Ruben Um Nyobè head of the council of ministers. Cameroon was declared to be a sovereign and socialist state. A Pro-French government was formed in exile in Gabon led by Ahmadou Ahidjo under the newly formed Cameroon Union party. France invaded the country after the Congo, starting on 20 October 1954 the Cameroonian war of independence. The first invasion was only semi-successful, and Cameroonians retreated to guerrilla warfare. Commissioner: Roland Joanes Louis Pré and replaced by French military leader André Zeller in 1955 (as part of power struggle with Salan).
Madagascar – National uprising (29 March 1947 – February 1949) brutally crushed. Thorez government moved to address this issues and Madagascar achieved local self-governance in August 1952. Local government was composed of PADESM (led by Philibert Tsiranana), AKFM (led by Richard Andriamanjato and one of released leaders of the uprising Joseph Raseta). Raseta served as the prime minister. Factions within the government were divided on how to respond to the new situation. Communist AKFM was closely linked with PCF and managed to convince other to declare “Malagasy sovereignty” (8 June), eventually Malagasy Republic declared independence on 8 May 1954, Raseta became president and Tsiranana leader of the new government. Election was declared for 1954. Madagascar participated in talks with Algiers government, however it ended with Madagascar not recognising them as legitimate French government and declared itself independent, but Madagascar recognised French control over other territories that used to belong French colony. Madagascar was lucky enough not being invaded but was subject to heavy political meddling from both French governments.
“Associated states”
De-facto French colonies, but with some autonomy and limited self-governance. Local prime-ministers and French appointed High Commissioners, who hold the real power.
Ivory Coast – Félix Houphouët-Boigny (PDCI-RDA), a key ally of Salan’s France, became its prime-minister. He was a supporter of the principle of creation of multiple associated states against groups that supported federation. Commissioners: Camille-Victor Bailly to 1954 and since 1954 Pierre Messmer.
Senegal->West African Union – Léopold Sédar Senghor (BDS) was a proponent of federation, but this was not favoured by Salan’s regime. He nevertheless supported maintaining ties with France and with their support managed to gain control over Mali under the West African Union. Senegal was despite his rule controlled de-facto by the French military. Commissioners: Lucien Eugène Geay (Senegal), Maxime Marie Antoine Jourdain of WAU.
Upper Volta – Henri Guissou (Voltaic Union/ UDIHV) became its first prime minister, he wanted to secure the country's separation from Ivory Coast, but had also independence sympathies. But his position was weak, as the country was divided into many political factions. He was viewed with suspicion by the French and was removed by the Commissioner (30 October 1955) and replaced by politician Gérard Kango Ouédraogo.
Togoland – Nicolas Grunitzky (Togolese Party of Progress) became prime minister. He faced opposition from pro-independence Sylvanus Olympio. Governor: Laurent Elysée Péchoux.
Gabon – Pro-French politician Paul Gondjout (Gabonese Democratic Bloc) was made the prime-minister. Commissioner: Yves Digo
Ubangi-Shari – Barthélemy Boganda of MESAN formed a government (30 May) after the May Decree but waited for further development. He participated in the Abidjan conference and advocated against division. He decided to accept this associated status as he thought declaring independence would lead to conflict with the French. Nevertheless, due to his nationalist ideas, he was quickly dismissed by the French Commissioner and replaced by Étienne Ngounio, who however continued to support the former prime minister. Commissioner: Louis Sanmarco
Niger – 1952 election divided between pro-French Union of Nigerian Independents and Sympathisers (UNIS) and leftist pro-independence Sawaba. Georges Condat-led UNIS was dominant in the assembly, so the followed others becoming an associate state, however Sawaba organised large protests for independence starting in May 1954, culminating in widespread riots. French authorities declared a state of emergency, banned Sawaba and sent in limited military forces in August 1955. Commissioner: Jean Ramadier.
North Africa
Morocco and Tunisia were already on their way to independence, so they immediately declared it after the May Decree (both on 2 May 1953). Both countries became constitutional monarchies. Tunisia – prime-minister Farhat Hached (Neo Destour) and king Muhammad VIII al-Amin. Morocco: Sultan Mohammed V. and prime-minister Ahmed Balafrej (Istiqlal).
Indochina already gained independence in 1952.
List of flags in French Africa:
​
https://preview.redd.it/f80xl0m5x53d1.png?width=504&format=png&auto=webp&s=78bce8e324e39a277da8b326340a07ff45abc1d4

I think I have enough, but who says that when collecting anything. Thanks WhatNot and the coolest of diecast sellers that supply folks like myself 🤘🏾

1: Infiniti QX56 whatever it’s called. Looks like a shoe. Maybe I’d like it if I was black
2: Toyota supra. Ugly and overrated. Handles like shit (in forza) I’m not rich enough to drive one if I was I still wouldn’t want it. Not even the new one either
3: Cadillac XT5. I thought these got discontinued like 4 years ago I’m so suprised there’s new ones in 2024. Karen racist white woman car.
4: Cadillac Escalade. I don’t like how it looks. Doesn’t look that luxurious to me. It reminds me of rental luxury. Too square for me. The newer ones are better. This car isn’t beautiful at all like I’d expect from that price tag. I’d rather drive an X7 or GLS whatever the 3 row is called
5: Lamborghini urus. Looks like a Chinese EV. Overstyled. Audi RSQ8 and Porsche Cayenne are better. 4.0TT sounds like shit for a Lamborghini. I can appreciate a Lamborghini SUV existing but it could look better. Can’t believe the facelift made it worse if that was possible
6: Tesla model Y. Rides like shit, interior is so cheap, loud interior, ugly and super common. Tesla nerds make me dislike the cars too why are they all so cringey and they always act the same. They’d probably pay to have the privilege of smelling his farts
7: tesla model 3. Same reasons as the Y. These always drive slow in the fast lane and then floor it to drive 5 under. I always cut them off really close with no signal for no reason when I drive
8: 1st gen Chevy trax. Do I need to elaborate?
9: Lamborghini huracan. The sterrato is cool. But these are just overstyled they’re not beautiful at all and somehow they look basic to me. Basic influencer supercar and everytime I see one I assume it’s a rental.
10: 2014 gen Nissan Sentra. Unreliable, extremely slow, mid features, ugly, cheap interior. My friend had one of these as a rental and he floored it and I didn’t believe him. I drove the nismo version the trunk weighed as much as a water bottle and rattled. The infotainment was so mediocre it would’ve been mediocre in 2005. Those fake vents on the facelift look so cheap.
11: Jeep Cherokee. Ugly unreliable poor driving rental car. These do have decent features if you pay a lot though.
12: Toyota CH-R. Poor visibility, super slow, super ugly. Not many features at all. Literally what redeemable features did this have? Toyota safety sense 2.0? Apple car play 🥱😴 . Definition of mid
13: gen 4 Prius. I always liked the Prius I wanted my parents to get the gen 3 version so bad when I was in middle school. This version is the ugliest Prius and has an ugly interior too. They also removed the 2 sunroofs from the 3rd gen 👎
14: Lexus ES. Overpriced Camry it is luxurious I just don’t like the proportions and how it’s FWD. it’s good for a lot of people though just not for me. GS450h should’ve been kept. Why oh why they couldn’t make a new gen 🙄
15: gen 4 ford escape. Pre facelift is so ugly. This car is so mediocre. Mediocre features, disgustingly ugly and cheap interior. 2.0T and hybrid are good though. My mom has the 1.6T gen 3 it’s shit but it’s been very reliable for how little maintenance she does. 105k miles she’s had I think 5 oil changes and 1 tuneup. Check engine light be on and off
16: vw id.4. Ugly asf and the touch controls and window stuff is stupid. Don’t like the interior also. Mid performance decent range. Ioniq5 🔛🔝
17: Mercedes GLE coupe. Ugly. BMW X6 looks better. I always assume the drivers of these are idiots for some reason
18: 2015 generation Nissan versa. Too ugly and too cheap. I get it’s supposed to be cheap but at least could’ve been styled better and had heated seats as an option. The current gen is decent I like it.
19: ford ecosport. Do I need to elaborate? I want to drive a 1.0T DCT FWD so bad. I saw one of these get stuck on a steep dry driveway in Mexico
20: 2020 Hyundai Elantra. The facelift is so ugly. And this car is so slow without the 1.6T gets stolen engine issues. Not much of a fan of the interior but it could be worse

My mom brought me this. My dad gave it to me in 2012 I think. I can't really find much info on it online. Anyone have any idea of value? I'd never sell it but curious to know if it's worth more than the $49 they paid for it haha. Any info would be appreciated

The parties comprising the Popular Front (formed in 1931 after the Action nationale's election breakthrough) were immediately outlawed. All other parties, including rival far-right organizations, were put on "indefinite recess" and then banned outright. Many members of the Popular Front took violent action against the fascist government, carrying out attacks against AN and Blueshirt offices and symbols.
The newly-installed government responded to this wave of violence by violently cracking down on the liberal and Communist parties, with the Blueshirts attacking protestors with bayonets and books by authors such as Freud, Marx and Rousseau being publicly burned in mass ceremonies. Jews were also targets of this violence; they faced violent pogroms, and the Jacqueries considered deporting all French Jews to Madagascar, which was to be run as a police state under the Blueshirts. However, the plan was not carried out.
Resistance to the fascist regime pretty much died out by mid-1938 as the French economy experienced rapid industrial growth and Dutroux redirected attention towards fighting Hitler. After the defeat of Germany and transformation of the industrial Rhineland into a French puppet state whose industrial production was almost entirely shipped to France, the fascist government became extremely popular, although there was some opposition to its traditional Catholic dictates in culture and societal relations.
When France and Italy joined forces with King Farouk to attack British troops in Egypt, many people denounced this as an impetuous and dangerous move, causing the Resistance to return with the support of the Allies. Until the final French failure to capture the Suez canal and naval defeat in the Biscay Bay (which ended hopes of an aeronaval invasion of Britain), it was limited to progressive circles, but as France was devastated by rationing, shortages and Allied strategic bombing raids launched from Britain itself, it rapidly expanded under the leadership of Pierre Mendes France and Maurice Thorez, who operated from London and Moscow respectively. After the landings in Normandy and the offensive through the mountains that followed the capitulation of Francoist Spain, they organized under the generic name of La Resistance.
On 15 April 1946 (not 1947), an aging Jacques Dutroux decreed that passing military secrets to the Allies was considered treason, a crime punishable by death. Following his decree, thousands were shot by the Blueshirts, Milice and Gendarmerie, including Charles de Gaulle, who attempted a military coup d'etat against Dutroux due to the latter's intransigence and having effectively fought until the end.
The SDECE, founded in 1937 as a replacement for the intelligence service of the Third Republic, was misled during the preparations for the Normandy landings into believing the Allies would land in the Mediterranean coast instead. This caused Jacques Dutroux into strengthening defenses there, leaving Normandy vulnerable, a vulnerability the Allies exploited – although they did not push into Ile-de-france until December.
Several postwar French prime ministers were resistance fighters.

Background: With President Nelson Rockefeller's second term coming to a close, all eyes would be on Vice President Hiram Fong as he would begin building the groundworks for a presidential campaign to succeed his superior and close friend. On December 3rd, 1970, Fong would announce his decision to run for the Republican nomination for president in 1972. Without any major competition, Fong would cruise through the primaries, becoming the presumptive nominee well before National Convention, making him the first nonwhite American to win the nomination for president under a major party.
With the nomination in hand, Hiram Fong and his campaign team would begin formulating the process to select his running mate. This team would consist of former congressman George H.W. Bush, presidential advisor Anne Armstrong, former RNC Chairman Dean Burch, and Hawaii Senator Neal Blaisdell. The team would begin advising Fong to select a more conservative candidate who would help to appeal to the party's right wing, suggesting California governor Ronald Reagan and House Majority Whip John Jacob Rhodes as viable choices. Others would suggest a more moderate candidate would suffice as long as Fong himself found a way to appeal towards conservative leadership himself. While not active in the process, President Rockefeller would suggest Attorney General Elliot Richardson and House Speaker Gerald Ford be put in consideration for the roles, citing the work they have done in helping to push his administration's policies.
Before long, a list of fifty plausible candidates would be cut down to twenty, then to ten, and finally six.
These candidates would be Governor Ronald Reagan of California, Governor Arch Moore of West Virginia, Pennsylvania Senator Richard Schweiker, House Speaker Gerald Ford, House Whip John Jacob Rhodes, and Attorney General Elliot Richardson.
With days before the convention, Fong would spend hours alone in his hotel room in Miami as he pondered who among the list would not only help him to secure the presidency, but who would best serve the role of vice president as he looks to guide the country as its next leader.
​
​
Hiram Leong Fong: Senator from Hawaii (1959-present), Speaker of the Hawaii House of Representatives (1946-1954).
Nominee: Vice President Hiram Fong of Hawaii.
​
Candidates:
​
​
Ronald Wilson Reagan: 33rd Governor of California (1967-present), 9th & 13th President of the Screen Actors Guild (1947-1952, 1959-1960).
Ronald Reagan: The actor-turned politician has become one of the most prominent figures among the Republicans' right wing, being well-known for his work in cutting taxes, boosted funding for education, and welfare reform. Despite having a noticeably controversial reputation for his feud with the Black Panthers and Berkeley Protests, the California Governor has managed to remain generally popular thanks to the newfound surplus in California's economy, as well as his ability to work with Democrats on key issues.
If nominated, Reagan would be able to ensure the conservative vote, whether it may be Republican or Democrat, would easily be kept in Fong's ranks by the time the general election is underway. The party's liberal and moderate wings, however, would likely need time to fully accept such a major conservative like Reagan on the ticket.
​
​
Arch Alfred Moore Jr.: 28th Governor of West Virginia (1969-present), Chair of the National Governors Association (1971-1972), Representative for WV-01 (1957-1969).
Arch Moore: With a decorated political record spanning from the West Virginia House of Delegates, Congress, and the governorship, Moore serves as a highly decorated candidate who would bring years of government experience to the ticket, as well as provide a strong campaigner in rural counties. During his tenure in Congress, Moore would hold a long record of supporting civil rights and public works, as well as briefly serving as the ranking chair of the of the House Committee on Immigration and Nationality.
As a governor, however, Moore has prioritized improving the state's highway system, increasing pay for teachers, improving insurance benefits for hospital workers, and pushing the state legislature to increase workers compensation benefits by 75%. Moore has gained national attention for helping to end a coal miners strike, and his handling of the Buffalo Creek flood.
​
​
Richard Schultz Schweiker: Senator for Pennsylvania (1969-present), Representative for PA-13 (1961-1969).
Richard Schweiker: A relatively safe choice, Schweiker would help to keep moderate and liberal voters in favor of the party while giving a seasoned campaigner in the Northeast. The Pennsylvania congressman has a strong record in support of civil rights, Social Security increases, fiscal conservatism in military spending, and healthcare.
What may hinder Schweiker's ability to help the ticket would come from his outspoken criticism of the Vietnam War, leaving defense hawks less keen in funding Fong's campaign. Some on the team also worry that Schweiker would leave the ticket unbalanced with two moderately liberal candidates on the same ticket.
​
​
Gerald Rudolph Ford: 45th Speaker of the House (1969-present), House Minority Leader (1965-1969), Republican House Conference Chairman (1963-1965), Representative for MI-05 (1949-present).
Gerald Ford: Well known for his modesty and negotiation skills, House Speaker Ford has made himself a respectable figure within the Republican Caucus. While not considered a major name in the conservative wing, his fiscal conservatism and Midwestern roots would help to create a better bridge between Fong and the party's righter flank. While in Congress, Ford has been a consistent supporter of civil rights, environmentalism, and strong defense.
Ford's nomination would keep the conservative wing from becoming too skeptical of Fong, provide a reliable vice president and lobbying force within the Senate, a solid campaign boost in the swing state of Michigan, and a key advisor on fiscal policies.
​
​
John Jacob Rhodes: House Majority Whip (1969-present), Chair of House Republican Policy Committee (1965-1969), Representative for AZ-01 (1953-present).
John Jacob Rhodes: A fervent conservative, Rhodes would provide a perfect counter to the more liberal reputation of Fong. With a reliable record of support for civil rights, an ability to win over traditional Democrats, and a good history of leadership within the Republican Party, Rhodes would be fit the bill for qualified leadership in the White House.
During his time in Congress, Rhodes has held committee assignments in the Education and Labor, Interior and Insular Affairs, and Appropriations committees, but also currently serves as chair of the House Budget Committee, giving him much-needed experience in fiscal policies. While Rhodes has expressed more interest in building seniority in the House, he has not declined to accept the role of vice president.
​
​
Elliot Lee Richardson: 60th Attorney General (1965-present), 34th Attorney General for Massachusetts (1958-1963).
Elliot Richardson: As one of President Rockefeller's top Cabinet members, Richardson has been at the forefront of Rockefeller's pursuit for the expansion and enforcement of civil rights legislation. While working under Rockefeller, Richardson has been a key legal advisor in various legal affairs regarding Rockefeller's environmental, labor, and healthcare. His nomination would not only provide for a strong appeal to liberal voters, but may also help to keep Massachusetts in the Republicans' control.
While Richardson has many years of government and legal experience, he has very little political experience. While Richardson narrowly won a single term as Massachusetts' Attorney General, he has primarily served in the background of other candidates' campaigns. Thus, putting him in the role of Vice President may potentially backfire against Richardson due to said lack of political experience.
​
​
View Poll

“Ask The Man Who Owns One”
Months ago we extracted this retired show car from its lakeside cottage to return it to service after a few years off the road. With the mechanical items sorted, today our friend and expert detailer made a house call for a clay bar and wax to return it to its former glory.
This 1940 Packard Series 110 Club Coupe once took National First Prize at the 1995 AACA show. The color is an approximation of Laguna Maroon Metallic. Today the 245-ci straight-six purrs like a sewing machine, and if there is any noise around the shop, the car is so quiet I sometimes have to strain to hear if it’s idling. Packard retained conservative styling (no doubt to satisfy its wealthy and nostalgic gilded-age clientele), so even though this car is an art-deco dream, its very vertical for 1940 when competitors like Cadillac and Lincoln had started to dramatically lengthen and lower and further streamline their profiles.
For an 84 year old car, it is extremely easy to drive. Despite the lack of power steering, its a relatively light car (more than 1,000-lbs lighter than my 1947 Cadillac), so negotiating traffic with the gigantic steering wheel is manageable. The column-shift 3-speed manual shifts smoothly, and the car glides over the road with ease. It is also reasonably powerful for its size (100hp), and with the brakes redone, this car is about as close as you can get to driving a brand new 1940 entry-level luxury coupe without traveling through time.
This evening we got to watch the sunset reflecting off the long, shiny hood and imagine what it would have been like to drive this home after spending $900 on a new car in 1940.
This car is for sale and located in Rochester, NY. Please message for info or with questions

Extra footnotes on 2nd photo

They have a huge wall of Coca-Cola themed diecast cars in the gift shop (mostly M2 but they also have their own 1/87 scale cars) and I found this 1932 Ford chase! Also picked up the truck because it looks awesome and I probably won’t see it again. But these cars are hella expensive, $14.95 EACH 🥴 oh well I won’t complain, I’ll take a chase any day 😁