21 December 1963

“Bloody Christmas” begins in Cyprus, ultimately resulting in the displacement of 25,000–30,000 Turkish Cypriots and destruction of more than 100 villages.

Bloody Christmas (1963)

Bloody Christmas (Turkish: Kanlı Noel) is a term used mainly, but not exclusively, in Turkish Cypriot and Turkish historiography, referring to the outbreak of intercommunal violence between the Greek Cypriots and the Turkish Cypriots during the Cyprus crisis of 1963–64, on the night of 20–21 December 1963 and the subsequent period of island-wide violence[1] amounting to civil war.[2] The violence led to the deaths of 364 Turkish Cypriots and 174 Greek Cypriots.[3] Approximately 25,000 Turkish Cypriots from 104 villages, amounting to a quarter of the Turkish Cypriot population, fled their villages and were displaced into enclaves.[4] Thousands of Turkish Cypriot houses left behind were ransacked or completely destroyed.[5] Around 1,200 Armenian Cypriots and 500 Greek Cypriots were also displaced. The violence precipitated the end of Turkish Cypriot representation in the Republic of Cyprus.

The term Bloody Christmas is not used in official Greek Cypriot and Greek historiography, which contends that the outbreak of violence was a result of a Turkish Cypriot rebellion (Tourkantarsia) against the lawful government of the Republic of Cyprus.[6]


The Republic of Cyprus was established as a bi-communal unitary state in 1960. Neither of the two communities were happy with this situation as Greek Cypriots thought it was their right to unite Cyprus with Greece (enosis) while Turkish Cypriots were striving for partition (taksim). After two relatively peaceful years, in November 1963 tensions high-rocketed when President and Arch-bishop Makarios III proposed 13 constitutional changes which were met with fury by Turkish Cypriots.[7]


21 December: eruption

The incident that sparked the events of Bloody Christmas occurred during the early hours of 21 December 1963. Greek Cypriot police operating within the old Venetian walls of Nicosia demanded to see the identification papers of some Turkish Cypriots who were returning home in a taxi from an evening out. When the police officers attempted to search the women in the car, the driver objected and an argument ensued. Soon a crowd gathered and shots were fired.[8][9] By dawn, two Turkish Cypriots had been killed and eight others, both Greek and Turkish Cypriots, had been wounded.[10]

21 December to 23 December

After the shooting, crowds of Turkish Cypriots gathered in the northern part of Nicosia, often led by the Turkish Resistance Organisation (TMT). On 22 December, the funerals of the two Turkish Cypriots killed were held without incident.[11] However, shooting broke out on the evening of 22 December. Cars full of armed Greek Cypriots roamed through the streets of Nicosia and fired indiscriminately, and Turkish Cypriots fired at patrolling police cars. Turkish Cypriot snipers fired from minarets and the roof of the Saray Hotel on Sarayönü Square. Some shooting spread to the suburbs and to Larnaca.[2] The Greek Cypriot administration cut off telephone and telegraph lines to Turkish Cypriot quarters of the city of Nicosia and the police took control of the Nicosia International Airport.[11] Greek paramilitary groups led by Nikos Sampson and Vassos Lyssarides were activated.[2]

On 23 December, a ceasefire was agreed upon by Makarios III and Turkish Cypriot leadership. However, fighting continued and intensified in Nicosia and Larnaca. Machine guns were fired from mosques in Turkish-inhabited areas. Later on 23 December, Greek Cypriot irregulars headed by Sampson committed the massacre of Omorphita: they attacked the suburb, killing Turkish Cypriots, including women and children, "apparently indiscriminately".[12] The Turkish Cypriot residents of the quarter were expelled from their homes.[13]

Later events

A number of Turkish Cypriot mosques, shrines and other places of worship were desecrated.[14]

Greek Cypriot irregulars attacked Turkish Cypriots in the mixed villages of Mathiatis on 23 December and Ayios Vasilios on 24 December.[15] The entire Turkish Cypriot population of Mathiatis, 208 people, fled to nearby Turkish Cypriot villages.[16]

, a reporter in Cyprus at the time, reported the murder of 21 Turkish Cypriot patients from the Nicosia General Hospital on Christmas Eve. This is taken as a fact in the Turkish Cypriot narrative, but is disputed in the Greek Cypriot narrative. An investigation of the incident by a "highly reliable" Greek Cypriot source found that three Turkish Cypriots died, of which one died of a heart attack and the other two were shot by a "lone psychopath".[17]

A joint call for calm was issued on 24 December by the governments of Turkey, Greece and the United Kingdom.[18]

As Cyprus was falling into havoc, Greece, Turkey and Britain, with Makarios's approval, created a Joint Truce Force under the command of General Peter Young, whose goal was to maintain, or rather re-establish, law, order and peace in Cyprus. By 31 December, 49 Turkish Cypriots and 20 Greek Cypriots were killed and 30 and 4, Turkish and Greek Cypriots respectively, were missing. Moreover, some Turkish Cypriots who had fled their homes to avoid the deadly Greek Cypriot paramilitary gangs and found shelter in Turkish only villages of the north side of Cyprus – one of the first steps towards partition.[19]

A conference held in London in January among the protagonists of the events, failed because of the maximalist positions of the leadership of Greek and Turkish Cypriots.[20]

The Republic of Cyprus states that between 21 December 1963 and 10 August 1964, 191 Turkish Cypriots were killed and 173 went missing, presumed killed, while Greek Cypriots suffered 133 killed and 41 missing, presumed killed.[21] Overall, 364 Turkish Cypriots and 174 Greek Cypriots were killed in the 1963–64 conflict.[3] Around 25,000 Turkish Cypriots from 104 different villages abandoned their homes. These consisted of 72 mixed and 24 Turkish Cypriot villages that were completely evacuated and 8 mixed villages that were partially evacuated. The displacement amounted to a quarter of the Turkish Cypriot population. Approximately 1,200 Armenian Cypriots and 500 Greek Cypriots were also displaced.[22]

Most of the property abandoned by Turkish Cypriots was ransacked, damaged, burned or destroyed by Greek Cypriots. A 1964 United Nations report that used aerial photographs determined that at least 977 Turkish Cypriot homes had been destroyed and that 2,000 Turkish Cypriot homes had suffered severe damage and ransacking.[23] The report by the UN Secretary General on 10 September 1964 gives the number of destroyed houses as 527 and the number of looted houses as 2,000. This included 50 totally destroyed and 240 partially destroyed houses in Omorphita and the surrounding suburbs, and 38 totally and 122 partially destroyed houses and shops in the town of Paphos.[24]

Mass grave of Agios Vasilios

A mass grave was exhumed at Ayios Vasilios on 12 January 1964 in the presence of foreign reporters, officers of the British Army and, officials from the International Red Cross. The bodies of 21 Turkish Cypriots were found in this grave.[25] It was presumed that they had been killed in or near Ayios Vasilios on 24 December 1963. It was verified by the observers that a number of the victims appeared to have been tortured, and to have been shot after their hands and feet were tied.[15][26]

An investigating committee led by independent British investigators then linked the incident to an ostensible disappearance of Turkish Cypriot patients in the Nicosia General Hospital, but it was not determined until decades later that many of the bodies had been murdered elsewhere, stored in the hospital for a while and then buried in Ayios Vasilios.[25] However, several of the village's residents were also amongst those killed by Greek Cypriots.[27] The exhumed bodies were interred by the Turkish Cypriot authorities to the yard of the Mevlevi Tekke in Nicosia. The bodies were exhumed in the 2010s by the Missing Persons Committee, the eight villagers of Ayios Vasilios identified and buried individually.[28]


It is generally accepted on both sides of the island that the event is clearly not an occasion for celebration, less importantly by association with the issue of inter-communal violence and what that led to, and more so by its own string of tragic events.[29] It is also often considered to contribute to reflections that the island of Cyprus is still divided more than 50 years later, which is a constant reminder to both sides that there has hardly been any joint communal achievement since, and is therefore seen by many as a time for reflection and trying to find a solution for future generations.[30]

Turkish Cypriots annually, and officially, commemorate 1963 as ‘Kanlı Noel’ (Bloody Christmas) on 21 December, as a collective tragedy, for which Greek Cypriots have no official commemoration.[31] The anniversary is commemorated by Turkish Cypriots as the 'week of remembrance' and the 'martyrs' struggle of 1963–1974', and follows the TRNC's Independence Day, which is on 15 November and is marked by protests in the south.

There are those on both sides that view these commemorations or lack thereof as issues for contention during Cyprus peace talks. It is often the case that the few public gestures made by Turkish and Greek Cypriot officials that signal possible reunification are often contradicted by these elements which have the effect of reinforcing the conflict mentality.[32]

Greek Cypriot official view

Anthropologist Olga Demetriou has described the Greek Cypriot official discourse regarding the events of Bloody Christmas as one that "in a sense, parallels denialist strategies that, for example and albeit in cruder form, draw on the battle of Van in 1915 to present Armenians as aggressors against Turks and deny the genocide."[33] According to Demetriou, this is still reflected in the Greek Cypriot history textbooks today, and has the effect of presenting the Greek Cypriots as the victims of Turkish Cypriot aggression, although the majority of the victims were Turkish Cypriot. According to Yannis Papadakis, Greek Cypriot schoolbooks describe the 1960s as "a period of aggression by the 'Turks' (Turkey and Turkish Cypriots) against the 'Greeks'", though the Turkish Cypriots suffered heavier losses in the conflict.[34] This has been used by the Republic of Cyprus to legitimise human rights violations against Turkish Cypriots, the suspension of their political rights, and, until 2003, the exclusion of Turkish Cypriots from the framing of the missing people by the Republic of Cyprus.[35] In 2004, Greek Cypriot President Tassos Papadopoulos said in an interview that no Turkish Cypriots were killed between 1963 and 1974. Reaction to this claim appeared in the Greek and Turkish Cypriot media,[36] with some Greek Cypriot media calling Papadopoulos's claim a blatant lie.[37]

Demetriou further contends that the use of the term "Turkish mutiny" (Tourkantarsia) to describe the events of 1963–64 contributes to the Greek Cypriot narrative that the Cyprus problem started in 1974, under which the Greek Cypriot and Armenian Cypriot people displaced in 1963–64 are not classified as "refugees" but as "those struck by the Turks" (Tourkoplihtoi).[38]

See also


  1. ^ Hadjipavlou 2016, p. 2017; Hazou 2013.
  2. ^ a b c Richter 2010, p. 120.
  3. ^ a b Oberling 1982, p. 120.
  4. ^ Bryant 2012, p. 5–15; Hoffmeister 2006, p. 17–20; Risini 2018, p. 117; Smit 2012, p. 51; United Nations 1964: "The trade of the Turkish community had considerably deciined during the period, due to the existing situation, and unemployment reached a very high level as approximately 25,000 Turkish Cypriots had beccme refugees"
  5. ^ Bryant 2012, p. 5–15; United Nations 1964.
  6. ^ Tzermias 2001, pp. 60–62.
  7. ^ Richter 2010, pp. 106–115.
  8. ^ Richter 2010, p. 94.
  9. ^ Havadis 2014.
  10. ^ Ker-Lindsay 2009, p. 24.
  11. ^ a b Borowiec 2000, pp. 56–57.
  12. ^ Borowiec 2000, pp. 56–57; Richter 2010, p. 121.
  13. ^ Lieberman 2013, p. 264.
  14. ^ The Guardian 1999.
  15. ^ a b Patrick 1976.
  16. ^ "Mathiatis". PRIO Cyprus Displacement Centre. Retrieved 21 December 2017.
  17. ^ Bryant & Papadakis 2012, p. 249.
  18. ^ Richter 2010, p. 120; Goktepe 2013, p. 130.
  19. ^ Richter 2010, pp. 121–122.
  20. ^ Richter 2010, p. 122.
  21. ^ Soulioti 1996, pp. 275–281, 350.
  22. ^ Bryant 2012, pp. 5–15; Hoffmeister 2006, pp. 17–20.
  23. ^ Bryant 2012, pp. 5–15.
  24. ^ United Nations 1964.
  25. ^ a b O'Malley & Craig 1999, p. 93.
  26. ^ The incident at Ayios Vasilios is described in the Special News Bulletin, issues 6, 19, 20, 21, 25 and 38. Secondary sources include H.S. Gibbons, 1969, pp. 114–117, 137–140; and K.D. Purcell, 1969, p. 327.
  27. ^ "AGIOS VASILEIOS". PRIO Displacement Centre. Retrieved 22 November 2018.
  28. ^ Bayrak 2018.
  29. ^ Keser 2013.
  30. ^ Hazou 2013.
  31. ^ Demetriou 2006.
  32. ^ Yakinthou 2009.
  33. ^ Demetriou 2014:This, in a sense, parallels denialist strategies that, for example and albeit in cruder form, draw on the battle of Van in 1915 to present Armenians as aggressors against Turks and deny the genocide.
  34. ^ Papadakis 2008, pp. 133–134.
  35. ^ Kovras 2014, p. 51; Demetriou 2014.
  36. ^ Stavrinides 2009.
  37. ^ Charalambous 2004; Stavrinides 2009.
  38. ^ Demetriou 2014; Kovras 2014, p. 51; Papadakis 2005, p. 149.


23 November 1963

The Beatles release With the Beatles.

With the Beatles

With the Beatles
A black-and-white photograph of the Beatles' faces on a black background with the band members wearing black turtleneck sweaters
Studio album by
Released22 November 1963 (1963-11-22)
Recorded18 July – 23 October 1963
StudioEMI, London
ProducerGeorge Martin
The Beatles chronology
Please Please Me
With the Beatles
A Hard Day's Night
Alternative covers
Australian cover
Australian cover
Alternative cover
Canadian cover
Canadian cover
The Beatles North American chronology
Beatlemania! With the Beatles
Introducing... The Beatles
The Beatles Canadian chronology
Beatlemania! With the Beatles
Twist and Shout

With the Beatles is the second studio album by the English rock band the Beatles. It was released on 22 November 1963 on Parlophone, exactly eight months after the band's debut Please Please Me. Produced by George Martin, the album features eight original compositions (seven by Lennon–McCartney and "Don't Bother Me", George Harrison's first recorded solo composition and his first released on a Beatles album) and six covers (mostly of Motown, rock and roll, and R&B hits). The cover photograph was taken by the fashion photographer Robert Freeman and has since been mimicked by several music groups over the years. A different cover was used for the Australian release of the album, which the Beatles were displeased with.

In the United States, the album's tracks were unevenly split over the group's first two albums released on Capitol Records: Meet the Beatles! and The Beatles' Second Album. It was also released in Canada under the name Beatlemania! With the Beatles. The album was ranked number 420 on Rolling Stone magazine's list of The 500 Greatest Albums of All Time in 2003,[4] and was included in Robert Dimery's 1001 Albums You Must Hear Before You Die.[5] It was voted number 275 in Colin Larkin's All Time Top 1000 Albums.[6]


Unlike Please Please Me, the bulk of whose tracks (10 of the 14, excluding previously issued singles) were recorded in one day,[7] With the Beatles was recorded over seven sessions across three months, from 18 July to 23 October. None of its 14 tracks were issued as singles in the UK. In between sessions, as Beatlemania took off across the UK, the group were busy with radio, TV, and live performances.


Impressed with Robert Freeman's black-and-white pictures of John Coltrane, Brian Epstein invited the photographer to create the cover image.[8] George Harrison later said that, whereas the cover of Please Please Me had been "crap", their second LP was "the beginning of us being actively involved in The Beatles' artwork ... the first one where we thought, 'Hey, let's get artistic.'"[9] The group asked Freeman to take inspiration from pictures their friend Astrid Kirchherr had taken in Hamburg between 1960 and 1962, featuring the band members in half-shadow and not smiling.[10] To achieve this result, on 22 August 1963, Freeman photographed them in a dark corridor of the Palace Court Hotel in Bournemouth, where the band were playing a summer residency at the local Gaumont Cinema.[11] To fit the square format of the cover, he put Ringo Starr in the bottom right corner, "since he was the last to join the group. He was also the shortest".[12] Paul McCartney described the result as "very moody", adding: "people think he must have worked at [it] forever and ever. But it was an hour. He sat down, took a couple of rolls, and he had it."[11] The original concept was to paint the picture from edge to edge, with no bleeding, title or artist credit – a concept that went against music industry practice and was immediately vetoed by EMI. The first album to carry an edge-to-edge cover was the Rolling Stones' self-titled debut, released five months later.[13] EMI also objected to the fact that the Beatles were not smiling; it was only after George Martin intervened, as head of Parlophone, that the cover portrait was approved.[13] Freeman was paid £75 for his work, which was three times the fee first offered by EMI.[11]

Music critic John Harris finds the cover most reminiscent of the photos Kirchherr took in Hamburg of Lennon, Harrison and Stuart Sutcliffe using the "half-lit technique" and says that, together with songs such as "Roll Over Beethoven" and "Money (That's What I Want)", With the Beatles thereby represents "a canny repackaging of their early '60s incarnation: Hamburg shorn of Prellies and leather, and sold to their public as a mixture of accomplished rock 'n' roll and art-house cool". Harris also sees the LP cover as a "watershed" design that encouraged other acts to eschew "the more cartoonish aspects of pop photography" and continued to exert an influence in the 1970s on covers such as those for Lou Reed's Transformer, Patti Smith's Horses and various punk rock albums.[13]

EMI Australia did not receive the cover art, and used different shots of the band in a similar style to the black-and-white photograph on other releases. The Beatles were unaware of this until fans showed them the cover during their only Australian tour, and informed the EMI publicity staff that they were not pleased with the substitution.[14]

Release and reception

Professional ratings
Review scores
AllMusic5/5 stars[15]
The A.V. ClubA[16]
Blender4/5 stars[17]
Encyclopedia of Popular Music4/5 stars[18]
Pitchfork Media8.8/10[20]
Record Collector4/5 stars[22]
Rolling Stone5/5 stars[23]
The Rolling Stone Album Guide4.5/5 stars[24]

The album became the first Beatles album released in North America when it was released in Canada on 25 November under the augmented title Beatlemania! With the Beatles, with additional text on the album cover, and issued only in mono at the time, catalogue number T 6051 (a stereo Canadian release would come in 1968, catalogue number ST 6051). For the United States release, the original running order of With the Beatles was unevenly split over the group's first two Capitol albums: nine tracks were issued on Meet the Beatles! (the eight original compositions plus "Till There Was You"), while the remaining five songs, all cover versions, were placed on The Beatles' Second Album.

The LP had advance orders of a half million and sold another half million by September 1965, making it the second album to sell a million copies in the United Kingdom, after the soundtrack to the 1958 film South Pacific.[25] With the Beatles remained at the top of the charts for 21 weeks, displacing Please Please Me, so that the Beatles occupied the top spot for 51 consecutive weeks. It even reached number 11 in the "singles charts" (because at the time UK charts counted all records sold, regardless of format).

On 26 February 1987, With the Beatles was officially released on compact disc (in mono only, catalogue number CDP 7 46436 2). Having been available only as an import in the US in the past, the album was also issued domestically in the US on LP and cassette on 21 July 1987. Along with the rest of the Beatles' canon, it was re-released on CD in newly re-mastered stereo and mono versions on 9 September 2009.

Track listing

All tracks are written by Lennon–McCartney, except where noted.

Side one
No.TitleLead vocalsLength
1."It Won't Be Long"Lennon2:13
2."All I've Got to Do"Lennon2:02
3."All My Loving"McCartney2:07
4."Don't Bother Me" (George Harrison)Harrison2:28
5."Little Child"Lennon with McCartney1:46
6."Till There Was You" (Meredith Willson)McCartney2:14
7."Please Mr. Postman" (Georgia Dobbins, William Garrett, Freddie Gorman, Brian Holland, Robert Bateman)Lennon2:34
Total length:15:24
Side two
No.TitleLead vocalsLength
1."Roll Over Beethoven" (Chuck Berry)Harrison2:45
2."Hold Me Tight"McCartney2:32
3."You Really Got a Hold on Me" (Smokey Robinson)Lennon and Harrison3:01
4."I Wanna Be Your Man"Starr1:59
5."Devil in Her Heart" (Richard Drapkin)Harrison2:26
6."Not a Second Time"Lennon2:07
7."Money (That's What I Want)" (Janie Bradford, Berry Gordy)Lennon2:49
Total length:17:38


According to Mark Lewisohn:[26]

The Beatles

  • John Lennon – lead, harmony and backing vocals; rhythm and acoustic guitars; handclaps; harmonica on "Little Child"; nylon-string acoustic guitar on "Till There Was You"; tambourine on "Don't Bother Me"
  • Paul McCartney – lead, harmony and backing vocals; bass guitar and handclaps; piano on "Little Child", claves on "Don't Bother Me"
  • George Harrison – lead, harmony and backing vocals; lead and acoustic guitars; handclaps; nylon-string acoustic guitar on "Till There Was You"
  • Ringo Starr – drums, tambourine, maracas, handclaps; lead vocals on "I Wanna Be Your Man", Arabian loose-skin bongo on "Till There Was You" and "Don't Bother Me"


Charts and certifications

Release history

Region Date Label Format Catalogue
United Kingdom 22 November 1963 Parlophone Mono LP PMC 1206
Stereo LP PCS 3045
16 February 1987 CD CDP 7 46436 2
United States 26 February 1987 Parlophone CD CDP 7 46436 2
21 July 1987 Capitol Records Mono, LP CLJ-46436
Worldwide re-release 9 September 2009 Apple Records Remastered stereo CD 0946 3 82420 2 4
Remastered mono CD
13 November 2012 Remastered stereo LP 0094638242017


  1. ^ O'Dell, Denis; Neaverson, Bob (2002). At the Apple's core: the Beatles from the inside. Peter Owen Limited. p. 27. the first truly convincing British rock and roll album, With The Beatles
  2. ^ Harrington, Richard (6 February 2004). "It was 40 years ago ..." The Washington Post. Archived from the original on 30 May 2013. Retrieved 5 January 2013.
  3. ^ Howlett, Kevin; Heatley, Mike (2009). With the Beatles (CD historical notes). p. 12.
  4. ^ Rolling Stone 2007.
  5. ^ ^ Robert Dimery; Michael Lydon (23 March 2010). 1001 Albums You Must Hear Before You Die: Revised and Updated Edition. Universe. ISBN 978-0-7893-2074-2.
  6. ^ Colin Larkin, ed. (2000). All Time Top 1000 Albums (3rd ed.). Virgin Books. p. 119. ISBN 0-7535-0493-6.
  7. ^ Lewisohn 1988, p. 24.
  8. ^ Beatles fans eye rare display of Fabs photos
  9. ^ The Beatles 2000, p. 107.
  10. ^ Carlin, Peter Ames (2009). Paul McCartney: A Life. Touchstone. p. 91. ISBN 978-1-4165-6209-2.
  11. ^ a b c Miles 2001, p. 104.
  12. ^ Lewisohn, Mark (1996). The Complete Beatles Chronicle. Chancellor Press. ISBN 0-7607-0327-2.
  13. ^ a b c Harris, John (2002). "Snapper's Delight". Mojo Special Limited Edition: 1000 Days of Beatlemania (The Early Years – April 1, 1962 to December 31, 1964). London: Emap. p. 59.
  14. ^ Baker & Dilernia 1985.
  15. ^ With the Beatles at AllMusic
  16. ^ Klosterman, Chuck (8 September 2009). "Chuck Klosterman Repeats The Beatles". The A.V. Club. Chicago. Archived from the original on 22 May 2013. Retrieved 26 May 2013.
  17. ^ Du Noyer, Paul. "The Guide: The Beatles – With the Beatles". Blender. Dennis Digital. Archived from the original on 4 May 2006. Retrieved 25 December 2008.
  18. ^ Larkin, Colin (2006). Encyclopedia of Popular Music. 1. Muze. pp. 487–489. ISBN 978-0-19-531373-4.
  19. ^ Graff, Gary; Durchholz, Daniel (eds) (1999). MusicHound Rock: The Essential Album Guide (2nd ed.). Farmington Hills, MI: Visible Ink Press. p. 88. ISBN 1-57859-061-2.CS1 maint: extra text: authors list (link)
  20. ^ "Album Reviews: The Beatles: With the Beatles". Pitchfork. 8 September 2009. Archived from the original on 6 October 2013. Retrieved 13 August 2011.
  21. ^ "The Beatles: The Long and Winding Repertiore". Paste. Archived from the original on 23 October 2013. Retrieved 5 January 2013.
  22. ^ McCann, Ian (December 2013). "The Beatles – With the Beatles". Record Collector. Retrieved 25 March 2015.
  23. ^ "The Beatles: With The Beatles". Archived from the original on 8 March 2007. Retrieved 20 July 2007.CS1 maint: BOT: original-url status unknown (link)
  24. ^ "Rolling Stone Artists: The Beatles". Rolling Stone. Archived from the original on 20 September 2011. Retrieved 28 June 2012.
  25. ^ "Wide Screen Movies Magazine". Widescreenmovies.org. Archived from the original on 6 June 2013. Retrieved 13 August 2011.
  26. ^ Lewisohn 1988.
  27. ^ "Offiziellecharts.de – The Beatles – With the Beatles" (in German). GfK Entertainment Charts. Retrieved 12 June 2016.
  28. ^ "The Beatles | Artist | Official Charts". UK Albums Chart. Retrieved 12 June 2016.
  29. ^ "Dutchcharts.nl – The Beatles – With the Beatles" (in Dutch). Hung Medien. Retrieved 12 June 2016.
  30. ^ "Ultratop.be – The Beatles – With the Beatles" (in Dutch). Hung Medien. Retrieved 12 June 2016.
  31. ^ "Ultratop.be – The Beatles – With the Beatles" (in French). Hung Medien. Retrieved 12 June 2016.
  32. ^ "The Beatles: With the Beatles" (in Finnish). Musiikkituottajat – IFPI Finland. Retrieved 12 June 2016.
  33. ^ "Italiancharts.com – The Beatles – With the Beatles". Hung Medien. Retrieved 12 June 2016.
  34. ^ "Spanishcharts.com – The Beatles – With the Beatles". Hung Medien. Retrieved 12 June 2016.
  35. ^ "Swedishcharts.com – The Beatles – With the Beatles". Hung Medien. Retrieved 12 June 2016.
  36. ^ "Swisscharts.com – The Beatles – With the Beatles". Hung Medien. Retrieved 12 June 2016.
  37. ^ Whitburn 2007.
  38. ^ "Discos de oro y platino" (in Spanish). Cámara Argentina de Productores de Fonogramas y Videogramas. Archived from the original on 6 July 2011. Retrieved 30 September 2019.
  39. ^ "ARIA Charts – Accreditations – 2009 Albums". Australian Recording Industry Association. Retrieved 15 September 2013.
  40. ^ "Canadian album certifications – The Beatles – With The Beatles". Music Canada. Retrieved 15 September 2013.
  41. ^ "Gold-/Platin-Datenbank (The Beatles; 'With The Beatles')" (in German). Bundesverband Musikindustrie. Retrieved 15 September 2013.
  42. ^ "British album certifications – The Beatles – With The Beatles". British Phonographic Industry. Retrieved 15 September 2013. Select albums in the Format field. Select Gold in the Certification field. Type With The Beatles in the "Search BPI Awards" field and then press Enter.
  43. ^ "American album certifications – The Beatles – With The Beatles". Recording Industry Association of America. Retrieved 15 September 2013. If necessary, click Advanced, then click Format, then select Album, then click SEARCH. 
  44. ^ "Beatles albums finally go platinum". British Phonographic Industry. BBC News. 2 September 2013. Archived from the original on 10 April 2014. Retrieved 4 September 2013.

Other sources

External links

3 October 1963

A violent coup in Honduras begins two decades of military rule

1963 Honduran coup d'état

1963 Honduran coup d'état
DateOctober 3, 1963 (1963-10-03)
Tegucigalpa, Honduras
Result Military government controls country
Armed Forces of Honduras Honduras
Commanders and leaders
Oswaldo López Arellano Ramón Villeda Morales
Units involved
Civil Guard
Casualties and losses
Unknown Scores of civil guardsmen and students dead

The 1963 Honduran coup d'état was a military takeover of the Honduran government on 3 October 1963, ten days before a scheduled election. Oswaldo López Arellano replaced Ramón Villeda Morales as the President of the country and initiated two decades of military rule.

Villeda Morales had instituted progressive labor laws and an agrarian reform policy, which prompted accusations of Communist sympathies from the right wing in Honduras and the United States. His intention to expropriate land from United Fruit Company, though never carried out, was a particular source of friction.

Civil–military relations in Honduras had deteriorated since 1957. A coup attempt in 1959, suppressed by students and unionist supporters of Villeda Morales, provoked intense hostility towards the military, as well as the creation of an autonomous presidential guard. Politicians discussed abolishing the military. Modesto Rodas Alvarado, the Liberal Party's candidate for president, ran on a demilitarization platform and was expected to win the election on 13 October 1963. The military acted pre-emptively and seized control of the government.


For much of the 20th century, the economy of Honduras was largely controlled by the United Fruit Company. Beginning with a successful general strike in 1954, workers pushed for better pay, shorter hours, job benefits, unionization, and land reform.[1]

Ramón Villeda Morales, a reformist physician with the Liberal Party of Honduras (Partido Liberal de Honduras, PLH) won a plurality of votes in the 1954 presidential election, but fell 8,869 votes short of a majority and was blocked from becoming president.[2][3] Vice President Julio Lozano Díaz attempted to seize power, dissolving the legislature and declaring himself interim president. On 7 October 1956, Lozano Díaz held a Congressional election which both of the country's major parties declared unfair and boycotted. This election (in which Díaz's party won every seat) provoked a military takeover on 21 October.[4] In a new election held on 22 September 1957, the PLH won a majority of seats. The new Congress appointed Villeda Morales as President for a six-year term.[4]

Villeda Morales presidency, 1957–1963

Villeda Morales introduced wide-ranging progressive platform, including infrastructure development, school construction, labor regulations, and agrarian reform. His policies generally won him praise from the Kennedy administration, but animosity from anticommunist hardliners (i.e. landowners and business executives) in Honduras and in the United States.[5]

Agrarian reform

Honduran farmers

Tension over land in Honduras was rising, as increasing production of bananas, cotton, cattle, and coffee drove many people off their land. Haciendas used barbed wire to enclose more and more land, provoking violent conflict with peasants.[6] The Villeda Morales government sought to quell this violence with moderate reforms, including the distribution of national land and the creation of a national peasant organization.[7]

Under Villeda Morales, Honduras joined the Alliance for Progress initiated by the United States under John F. Kennedy. Enthusiastic about liberalization, Villeda promoted a land reform law to defuse the anger of peasants, restore illegally occupied land, and increase the amount of land under cultivation.[8][9] The law would have expropriated uncultivated lands owned by U.S. Companies, including the United Fruit Company and the Standard Fruit Company.[9]

Villeda Morales resisted pressure from Ambassador Charles F. Burrows to prioritize the interests of U.S. companies.[10] His actions were not well-received by business interests in the United States. United Fruit president Thomas Sunderland wrote to Secretary of State Martin:[11]

The events of today indicate that the situation in Honduras is growing more serious with the passing of time. In spite of the affirmations made by President Villeda Morales in the presence of the American Ambassador that a copy of the proposed law would be shown to us today, Honduran government officials have declined to show us the bill. . . . We urgently need action by the State Department through the American Ambassador with the goal of obtaining a copy of this proposal before it is too late to take action to defend American interests.

The U.S. Senate threatened to withhold aid from Honduras if it expropriated possessions of a U.S. company .[12] The Kennedy Administration pressured Villeda Morales directly, and after a visit to the White House in 1962 he made significant policy changes to undercut the power of the land reform law.[13] By October 1962, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Edwin M. Martin announced that Honduras had agreed to protect the banana companies interests—but United Fruit was unconvinced, insisting that with its new agrarian reform law, Honduras was travelling "on the path of Cuba and Communist China."[14]

Politics of anticommunism

To prove his anticommunist credentials, Villeda Morales routinely denounced Communism and cut diplomatic relations with Cuba in 1961.[15] Many U.S. officials, however, warned that the liberal Villeda Morales government was not sufficiently hardline on Communism.[16]

A Helluva Situation
"We have a helluva situation down here and unless really forceful action is taken we are going to have a little Commie Chine [sic] right in our own backyard."

Whitting Willauer, U.S. Ambassador to Honduras.[17]

The Federal Bureau of Investigation sought to identify Communists within the Liberal Party.[18] The Central Intelligence Agency worked actively in Honduras to alienate the country from revolutionary Cuba. When Villeda Morales cut ties with Cuba, one week after the Bay of Pigs invasion, it was probably at the urging of U.S. agents in Honduras.[19]

As in other Latin American countries, the United States had cultivated a relationship with the Honduran military. A 1954 agreement between the two countries promised military aid from the US in exchange for resource extraction rights.[20] The military sent representatives to meetings of the US-orchestrated Central American War Ministers group, which became CONDECA (Consejo de Defensa Centroamericana).[21] During the Villeda Morales presidency, the Honduran military had greater allegiance to the U.S. than to the Liberal Party government—thereby exerting constant pressure on the government to follow U.S. policy mandates.[22]

Tensions between military and civilian government

Tension between the civilian government and the military began after the election, when it seems that military officers coerced Villeda Morales and the PLH to adopt a new Constitution. The Constitution of 1957 envisioned a political role for the Honduran military, stipulated that the military could operate from a secret budget, and allowed the military to disobey "orders that violate the spirit or letter of the Constitution".[23] The military used its newly expansive powers, demanding changes in the civilian government and abusing Honduran citizens with impunity.[24] PLH leader Francisco Milla Bermúdez argued that Honduras should abolish its military completely, as Costa Rica had done. Resentment against the military was rising, and Milla Bermúdez's proposal received unexpected popular support.[25]

1959 coup attempt

On 12 July 1959, a coup led by Colonel Armando Velásquez Cerrato killed numerous people in an attempt to gain power. This attempt was supported by the National Police and by the powerful Somoza forces of Nicaragua, but did not have complete support from within the military. This coup was defeated when students and unionists came to the government's defense. The head of the armed forces interceded, allowed Velásquez Cerrato to escape, and declared a return to the status quo.[26]

The attempted coup provoked further alarm about the power of the military, and led to active civilian efforts to restrict its power. Public opinion turned further against the military, and demilitarization was discussed as a viable political option. Ildefonso Orellana Bueno argued, in a speech to the Constituent Assembly (and republished in El Cronista), for a reform of the 1957 Constitution:[27]

The group of individuals clustered with the pompous name of 'Armed Forces' wants to convert themselves into a privileged and all-embracing caste, shielding itself to reach its goals in Title XIII of our fundamental law, from whose trench they are preparing to stab the back of the Honduran people, having now been converted not only in the devouring octopus of the national budget, but also in a real social threat, in an imminent danger for our own security, and in an enemy of the functioning democracy in which we have dedicated our faith.

President Villeda organized a militarized Civil Guard (Guardia Civil), which reported to the President and sometimes fought openly with the military. After the Civil Guard defeated the Army in a March 1961 soccer game, soldiers killed 9 members of the Civil Guard. In September 1961, the Civil Guard killed 11 soldiers and civilians who were attempting another coup against Villeda.[28][29]

1963 election campaign

Villeda himself had lost support within the Liberal Party, due to his concessions to the National Party, the military, and the United States. Modesto Rodas Alvarado became a leader of the Liberal Party opposition to Villeda, and won the party's nomination for the election scheduled for 13 October 1963. Rodas Alvarado won substantial popular support based on campaign promises to abolish the military.[30][31]

Colonel Oswaldo López Arellano was offered the nomination of the National Party (Partido Nacional de Honduras, PNH) by the influential General and former President Tiburcio Carías Andino. He turned it down, citing "reasons beyond my control". This cryptic response led to charges among the National Party (and the press) that the U.S. had pressured López Arellano not to participate in the election, because of Kennedy's opposition to military governments.[32] The eventual nominee of the National Party, Ramón Ernesto Cruz, had served past dictatorships and was not popular with farmers, organized labor, or liberals in San Pedro Sula. Ernesto Cruz's chances were weakened further when General Carías Andino formed a splinter party (the Popular Progressive Party).[33]

Rumors in the middle of the year suggested the possibility of a coup. The U.S. was also aware of this possibility.[34] Kennedy himself opposed a coup, threatening to cut off economic aid to a military junta. This threat was disregarded by conservatives in the military, who expressed confidence (according to Burrows) that the US "would be back in six months".[14]


On 3 October 1963, the military conducted a violent coup, beginning with an attack on sleeping Civil Guardsmen. More civilian resistors and Civil Guardsmen were killed in the following days.[35][36]

Colonel López Arellano was proclaimed President and issued a declaration which described problematic elements of the former regime:[37]

  1. The existence of a Guardia Civil, converted into a political army, duly armed and in open opposition to the Army, with its only goal to achieve the elimination of [the Army] in order to proceed afterward to submit the citizenry in general to the capricious sectarian desires of its leaders.
  2. The evidence that the Government of the Republic favored the goals of the [Guardia Civil], helping it achieve those goals materially and morally. . . .
  3. The infiltration and freedom of action of extreme leftist elements, who in frank and open contrivance with government functionaries had undertaken a campaign of discrediting the Armed Forces as an initial step in implanting a climate of unrest that permits the rise of totalitarianism.
  4. The violation of the principles of free election, through the adulteration of electoral censuses and interference . . . [and the passage] of an unconstitutional election law (Gobierno Militar de Honduras 1963: 8–9).

Villeda Morales and Rodas Alvarado were immediately deported to Costa Rica.[38]


The government of San Pedro Sula, led by Mayor Felipe Zelaya Zelaya of the Liberal Party convened on 5 October to determine a response. They decided to remain in office, within the state of Honduras, if the Arellano regime agreed to respect the autonomy of the municipal government.[39]

The Voice of America quoted Ambassador Burrows stating that the "military golpe was justified due to the Communist infiltration into the government of Ramón Villeda Morales". The statement was denied by the United States Information Agency on the following day.[40]

Kennedy publicly condemned the coup after it took place, calling it "self-defeating" because "dictatorships are the seedbeds from which communism ultimately springs up".[41] The coup seemed to counteract the values espoused by the young Alliance for Progress.[42][43] On Kennedy's orders, the US ended diplomatic relations with the Honduras government.[41] Kennedy was assassinated on 22 November 1963. The new U.S. President, Lyndon B. Johnson, recognized the military government on 14 December 1964.[44]


Honduran soldiers collaborate with the US occupation of the Dominican Republic, 1965

The era of military government begun by the 1963 coup lasted solidly until 1982.[45]

In January 1965, López Arellano deposed the San Pedro Sula officials and replaced them with his allies in the National Party.[39] Many Liberal Party politicians did not accept the legitimacy of the 1965 Congressional and Presidential elections, but were pressured to accept the results. The U.S., via Ambassador Burrows, also urged politicians to participate in the new government. Adolf Berle, who had earlier visited Villeda Morales to investigate him for the CIA, now convinced him to acquiesce to the military regime.[46]

The U.S. increased its economic control of Honduras, while the country fell further into debt. U.S. companies controlled the fruit industry and the mining industry; the two largest Honduran banks were acquired by American companies. More money and goods were exported than came in, however.[47][48] Land ownership remained disproportionate, unemployment rose, and the distribution of wealth grew more unequal than it already was.[47]


  1. ^ Leonard, History of Honduras (2011), p. 141. "Despite the limited gains, the 1954 strike marked a major turning point in the growing strength of the Honduran labor movement and the decline of the fruit companies over state affairs. Coupled with the 1949 labor law, the settlement of the 1954 labor strike paved the way for the full unionization of Honduran labor in 1955, when the state legalized 50 unions, including the North Coast banana workers."
  2. ^ Mylene Bruneau, "Ramón Villeda Morales: The “Little Bird” Who Brought Big Changes and Honor to Honduras”, Council on Hemispheric Affairs, 8 May 2009.
  3. ^ Bowman, "Public Battles over Militarisation and Democracy in Honduras" (2001), p. 551.
  4. ^ a b Leonard, History of Honduras (2011), p. 144.
  5. ^ Bowman, Militarization, Democratization, and Development (2002), pp. 166–167.
  6. ^ Schulz & Schulz, The United States, Honduras, and the Crisis in Central America (1994), pp. 28–29. "In contrast, the big cotton plantations and cattle ranches tended to expand outward, absorbing neighboring land by evicting tenants and squatters and fencing in their new acquisitions with barbed wire. In southern Honduras, between 1952 and 1966, two haciendas alone acquired some 54,000 acres through such 'competitive exclusion.' Moreover, as land grew more scarce, the purchase and rental price of property rose, driving even more people into landlessness. These developments could not but produce a reaction. As peasant desperation grew, agrarian conflict increased. Campesinos began to resist the encroachments of the big commercial farms. Land invasions and violence became more frequent. Peasant militancy and organization increased."
  7. ^ Schulz & Schulz, The United States, Honduras, and the Crisis in Central America (1994), p. 29. "In response, the government set up a colonization program. Between 1958 and 1960, some 75,000 acres of land were distributed. In 1961 a National Agrarian Institute (Instituto Nacional Agrario—INA) was established to oversee the process. A year later Villeda sponsored a new peasant union, the National Association of Honduran Peasants (Asociación Nacional de Campesinos de Honduras—ANACH), to counteract a more radical organization."
  8. ^ Schulz & Schulz, The United States, Honduras, and the Crisis in Central America (1994), p. 29.
  9. ^ a b LaFeber, Inevitable Revolutions (1993), pp. 179–180. "But Villeda Morales became too acute about the Alliance's objectives. At the 1961 Punta del Este meeting, he took the Kennedy administration's rhetoric so seriously that he drafted an agrarian reform law which threatened the massive uncultivated lands owned by United Fruit and Standard Fruit."
  10. ^ Euraque, Reinterpreting the Banana Republic (1996), p. 113. "Charles F. Burrows, the U.S. Ambassador, had long been reviewing the projected law with Villeda Morales so that, according to State Department official Edwin M. Martin, Villeda Morales and other Honduran officials 'would be aware of our interest in ensuring that the law was both constructive in its effects on agricultural productivity and incomes and would not adversely affect the legitimate interests of the present property owners, including United States corporations.' Despite Burrow's early discussions with Villeda Morales, the liberal leader apparently still felt that he could demonstrate some independence from Washington and the banana companies. For example, he 'failed' to show United Fruit Company officials copies of agrarian legislation prior to debate in the Honduran Congress."
  11. ^ Bowman, Militarization, Democratization, and Development (2002), p. 172.
  12. ^ Schulz & Schulz, The United States, Honduras, and the Crisis in Central America (1994), p. 30.
  13. ^ Bowman, Militarization, Democratization, and Development (2002), p. 172. "Two months after signing the Agrarian Reform Law, Villeda was summoned to Washington to meet with Kennedy at the White House. After this meeting, Villeda removed the progressive director of the National Agrarian Institute (INA) and 'agrarian reform shifted drastically from expropriation of private property to colonization or resettlement projects upon state-owned land' (MacCameron 1983, 113; also see Brocket 1991). Villeda had seen what happened to Arbenz when the CIA and the UFCO decided he was a threat. Land reform continued in a watered-down version and country headed into the 1963 election."
  14. ^ a b Euraque, Reinterpreting the Banana Republic (1996), p. 113.
  15. ^ Euraque, Reinterpreting the Banana Republic (1996), p. 114. "Starting in 1961, the president's enemies had viciously red-baited his regime, despite Ambassador Burrows's reassurances to Villeda Morales and despite Villeda Morales public denunciations of communism in general and its Cuban variety in particular. Villeda Morales suspended diplomatic relations with Cuba in April 1961—before he signed the alliance charter in August. Even right-wing opponents recognized his constant recriminations against 'Castro-Communism.' Nonetheless, by the time López Arellano ousted Villeda Morales, it was a foregone conclusion that the new regime would justify the coup at least partly because of 'the communist menace' to local civilization, property, and so forth."
  16. ^ Euraque, Reinterpreting the Banana Republic (1996), p. 108. "Berle's confidence in Villeda Morales's regime actually belied, at least by 1962, a suspicion that liberals like Villeda Morales and others in the region were often still too soft on communists and 'crypto-Communists.'”
  17. ^ Bowman, Militarization, Democratization, and Development (2002), p. 157. "Willauer had never set foot in Central America before he arrived in Honduras in February 1954. [...] The new American ambassador had actually been originally nominated to go to Guatemala and oversee the overthrow of Arbenz but was switched to Honduras where he starred in a supporting role by keeping the Honduran government in line and providing the training of the Castillo Armas forces. The Great Banana Strike hit Honduras soon after Willauer's arrival and he saw 'Pinkos' as the source of the trouble. In a letter to General Chenault of the Flying Tigers, Willauer wrote: 'We have a helluva situation [...]."
  18. ^ Bowman, Militarization, Democratization, and Development (2002), p. 156.
  19. ^ MacCameron, Bananas, Labor, and Politics (1983), p. 113. "More realistically, Villeda Morales appeared to have followed explicit policy directives of the United States embassy in Honduras. Throughout Latin America, the CIA and the State Department were working assiduously to precipitate ruptures in diplomatic relations with Castro (Agee 1975:138–316, passim). The perpetration of a classic CIA ploy became evident in Honduras a month prior to the Bay of Pigs invasion, when Roberto Dominguez Argucia, supposedly a leading intellectual of the Honduran Communist Party and a member of the Committee of Friends of the Cuban Revolution, surfaced to publicly assail the 'tyranical ambitions' of Fidel Castro. Such statements of political disavowal more than faintly resembled the actions of such CIA agents as the Guatemalan Manuel Pellcer."
  20. ^ LaFeber, Inevitable Revolutions (1993), p. 182. "In an underdeveloped country, the military had become the most developed political institution. The United States played a vital role in fashioning that army. In the 1954 agreement that established the military relationship, the United States promised military aid and in return Honduras promised to open for U.S. Exploitation any 'raw and semi-processed materials required by the United States of America as a result of deficiencies or potential deficiencies in its own resources.' (That provision and other parts of the treaty resembled clauses in the 1903 pact in which the United States made a virtual colony out of Panama.)”
  21. ^ Bowman, Militarization, Democratization, and Development (2002), p. 154.
  22. ^ MacCameron, Bananas, Labor, and Politics (1983), pp. 114–115. "Even as Villeda Morales offered near-total cooperation with CIA front organizations in Honduras, the autonomous nature of the Honduran military served as a constant reminder of his government's very real fragility. The constitutional leverage which the military exerted on the presidency probably determined to some extent the final forms of the labor and agrarian laws. In view of Ropp's thesis (see chapter three) that the Honduran military owed its institutional strength exclusively to United States military aid and assistance, and indeed relied for its continued strength upon the same source, there was every reason to believe that the army would not allow national legislation to undermine the strength of United States economic interests in Honduras. Villeda Morales certainly recognized and understood this political fact of life, and carefully heeded it in governing the country."
  23. ^ Bowman, "Public Battles over Militarisation and Democracy in Honduras" (2001), p. 554.
  24. ^ Bowman, "Public Battles over Militarisation and Democracy in Honduras" (2001), p. 555. "It soon became apparent to the Liberal Party that the constitutional prerogatives and power provided to the Honduran armed forces were incompatible with democracy. The military made constant demands on the civilian government, including requests for changes in the cabinet. Beatings and even the shooting of civilians by the security forces occurred, and with the constitutional independence of the military no civilian charges could ever be brought. The press began to question the 'constant brutality' committed by soldiers. The murder of two students at the hands of the military in 1959 resulted in a surge of protests."
  25. ^ Bowman, "Public Battles over Militarisation and Democracy in Honduras" (2001), p. 555. "The generals were furious with the Milla statement. Yet it is striking and significant that the general public was not. In an article entitled 'Popular Opinion Says Suppress the Army', the country's independent daily reported that the public response to the Milla comments was completely unexpected; the people wanted the soldiers to abandon the barracks and 'seek other more dignified means of daily sustenance'. The university students also seconded Milla's proposal."
  26. ^ Bowman, "Public Battles over Militarisation and Democracy in Honduras" (2001), p. 555. "Velásquez, who was closely associated with the National Party, Somoza in Nicaragua and the most reactionary forces in the country, was supported above all by the National Police. The coup was violent, leaving many dead and injured. For the first few hours, the 'loyal' members of the armed forces stood on the sideline waiting to see if the coup would gain momentum. Students, labour and other members of civil society rushed to Villeda's defence and fought valiantly against the rebels ; Universidad Nacional Auto!noma de Honduras students and labour saved Villeda."
  27. ^ Bowman, Militarization, Democratization, and Development (2002), p. 169.
  28. ^ Bowman, “Public Battles over Militarisation and Democracy in Honduras” (2001), pp. 555–556.
  29. ^ MacCameron, Bananas, Labor, and Politics (1983), p. 115.
  30. ^ Bowman, "Public Battles over Militarisation and Democracy in Honduras" (2001), p. 558
  31. ^ MacCameron, Bananas, Labor, and Politics (1983), pp. 115–116.
  32. ^ Euraque, Reinterpreting the Banana Republic (1996), p. 115. "What forces beyond López Arellano's control could have kept one of the country's most powerful men from the presidency? In early March 1963 Ambassador Burrows found himself denying National Party accusations that the U.S. Government had persuaded López Arellano to reject the Carías nomination.
  33. ^ Euraque, Reinterpreting the Banana Republic (1996), p. 116.
  34. ^ Bowman, Militarization, Democratization, and Development (2002), pp. 173–174.
  35. ^ Bowman, Militarization, Democratization, and Development (2002), pp. 174. "On 3 October 1963, a mere ten days before the election, the military staged a preemptive coup. Cognizant of the support of civil society and students in the previous coup attempt, the military unleashed one of the most violent coups in the history of Central America. Scores of civil guards were killed as they slept and violence against civilians continued for days. Attempts by students and Liberal Party supporters to challenge the overthrow of democracy were met with brutal reactions by los gloriosos.”
  36. ^ Resistance Attempt Fails in Honduras”; St. Petersburg Times (UPI), 7 October 1963.
  37. ^ MacCameron, Bananas, Labor, and Politics (1983), p. 117.
  38. ^ Euraque, Reinterpreting the Banana Republic (1996), p. 108.
  39. ^ a b Euraque, Reinterpreting the Banana Republic (1996), pp. 116–117.
  40. ^ MacCameron, Bananas, Labor, and Politics (1983), pp. 117–118.
  41. ^ a b LaFeber, Ineevitable Revolutions (1993), p. 181.
  42. ^ Schulz & Schulz, The United States, Honduras, and the Crisis in Central America (1994), p. 31. "Villeda had been one of John F. Kennedy's favorites: a democrat and a reformer but also a fervent anticommunist who respected private property. He was, moreover, the fourth democratically elected Latin American president to be overthrown since 1962. Such coups undercut one of the basic assumptions of the Alliance for Progress—namely that the way to prevent Castro-style regimes was to eliminate the conditions that gave rise to them.”
  43. ^ Morris W. Rosenberg, “Coup Setback for Alliance: Military Oppose U.S. Plan”; Evening Independent, 4 October 1963.
  44. ^ Schulz & Schulz, The United States, Honduras, and the Crisis in Central America (1994), p. 31. "His successor, Lyndon Johnson, abruptly changed course. When the new head of the Honduran government Colonel Oswaldo López Arellano, proved willing to pay the necessary lip service to democracy, relations were restored. Even had Kennedy lived, it is unlikely that things would have turned out differently."
  45. ^ Bowman, "Public Battles over Militarisation and Democracy in Honduras" (2001), pp. 558–560.
  46. ^ Euraque, Reinterpreting the Banana Republic (1996), pp.118–119. "López Arellano's removal of San Pedro Sula's authorities in January 1965, as part of a national strategy, strengthened his party there and countrywide on the eve of Constituent Assembly elections scheduled for February. The results of those elections, now supervised by the nationalists and local military commanders, paved the way for López Arellano's assumption of 'legitimate' constitutional power. [...] The liberal deputies protested, but most eventually joined the body that soon transformed itself into a Congress, again following the liberal practices of 1957. Liberal deputies came under great pressure from many quarters to accept the situation, including from Ambassador Burrows. Villeda Morales himself joined the chorus demanding subservience, arguing that the deputies should 'assume a virile and energetic attitude and defend the interests of democracy and the country.' The aged Adolf Berle visited Villeda Morales in those days and, 'with a great deal of soul-searching,' advised him 'not to go into revolution.'”
  47. ^ a b LaFeber, Inevitable Revolutions (1993), pp. 182–184. "U.S. direct investment declined in Honduras during 1960 and 1961, rose during 1962 and 1963, and then doubled between 1963 and 1971 to well over $200 million (in book value). Despite this inflow, U.S. Companies took more out of Honduras after 1963 than they put in: in 1968 the outflow reached $22.4 million and in 1969, $17.7 million. The country exported more goods than it imported, yet its current account balance swam ever deeper in red ink until it threatened to drown amidst the benefits of the Alliance for Progress. The United States continued to control the banana industry, the largest mining companies, and key parts of the infrastructure including the two most important railroads. The two largest commercial banks, Atlantide and Bank of Honduras, came under the respective control of Chase Manhattan in 1967 and National City Bank of New York in 1965.”
  48. ^ Schulz & Schulz, The United States, Honduras, and the Crisis in Central America (1994), p. 34. “The 1960s witnessed a rapid increase in foreign—mostly U.S.—economic penetration. Between 1963 and 1967, U.S. investment doubled. Of the sixty-three major companies in the country, thirty-five were set up between 1960 and 1968. One hundred percent of the production of the five largest Honduran firms was controlled by U.S. multinationals; the comparable figures for the twenty and fifty largest companies were 88.7 percent and 82 percent, respectively.”


  • Bowman, Kirk. "The Public Battles over Militarisation and Democracy in Honduras, 1954–1963". Journal of Latin American Studies 33(3), August 2001; pp. 539–560. Accessed via JStor, 12 September 2013.
  • Bowman, Kirk. Militarization, Democracy, and Development: The Perils of Praetorianism in Latin America. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2002. ISBN 0-271-02229-9
  • Euraque, Darío A. Reinterpreting the Banana: Region and State in Republic Honduras, 1870–1972. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1996. ISBN 0-8078-2298-1
  • LaFeber, Walter. Inevitable Revolutions: The United States in Central America, Second Edition. New York: W. W. Norton & Co, 1993. ISBN 0-393-30964-9
  • Leonard, Thomas M. The History of Honduras. Santa Barbara, CA: Greenwood (ABC-CLIO), 2011. ISBN 978-0-313-36303-0
  • MacCameron, Robert. Bananas, Labor, and Politics in Honduras: 1954–1963. Foreign and Comparative Studies/Latin American Series, No. 5; Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs; Syracuse University, 1983. ISBN 0-915984-96-2
  • Schulz, Donald E., and Deborah Sundloff Schulz. The United States, Honduras, and the Crisis in Central America. Boulder: Westview Press, 1994. ISBN 0813313236

External links

10 October 1963

The Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty comes into effect.

The Partial Test Ban Treaty is the abbreviated name of the 1963 Treaty Banning Nuclear Weapon Tests in the Atmosphere, in Outer Space and Under Water, which prohibited all test detonations of nuclear weapons except for those conducted underground. It is also abbreviated as the Limited Test Ban Treaty and Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, though the latter may also refer to the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty, which succeeded the PTBT for ratifying parties.

Negotiations initially focused on a comprehensive ban, but this was abandoned due to technical questions surrounding the detection of underground tests and Soviet concerns over the intrusiveness of proposed verification methods. The impetus for the test ban was provided by rising public anxiety over the magnitude of nuclear tests, particularly tests of new thermonuclear weapons, and the resulting nuclear fallout. A test ban was also seen as a means of slowing nuclear proliferation and the nuclear arms race. Though the PTBT did not halt proliferation or the arms race, its enactment did coincide with a substantial decline in the concentration of radioactive particles in the atmosphere.

The PTBT was signed by the governments of the Soviet Union, United Kingdom, and United States in Moscow on 5 August 1963 before being opened for signature by other countries. The treaty formally went into effect on 10 October 1963. Since then, 123 other states have become party to the treaty. Ten states have signed but not ratified the treaty.

5 June 1963

John Profumo, the British Secretary of State for War, resigns in a sex scandal known as the “Profumo affair”.

On June 5, 1963, British Secretary of War John Profumo resigns his post following revelations that he had lied to the House of Commons about his sexual affair with Christine Keeler, an alleged prostitute. At the time of the affair, Keeler was also involved with Yevgeny “Eugene” Ivanov, a Soviet naval attache who some suspected was a spy. Although Profumo assured the government that he had not compromised national security in any way, the scandal threatened to topple Prime Minister Harold Macmillan’s government.

Age 48 in 1963, John Dennis Profumo was appointed secretary of war by Macmillan in 1960. As war minister, he was in charge of overseeing the British army. The post was a junior cabinet position, but Profumo looked a good candidate for future promotion. He was married to Valerie Hobson, a retired movie actress, and the Profumos were very much at the center of “swinging ’60s” society in the early 1960s. One night in July 1961, John Profumo was at the Cliveden estate of Lord “Bill” Astor when he was first introduced to 19-year-old Christine Keeler. She was frolicking naked by the Cliveden pool.

Keeler was at Cliveden as a guest of Dr. Stephen Ward, a society osteopath and part-time portraitist who rented a cottage at the estate from his friend Lord Astor. Keeler was working as a showgirl at a London nightclub when she first met Dr. Ward. Ward took her under his wing, and they lived together in his London flat but were not lovers. He encouraged her to pursue sexual relationships with his high-class friends, and on one or more occasions Keeler apparently accepted money in exchange for sex. Ward introduced her to his friend Ivanov, and she began a sexual relationship with the Soviet diplomat. Several weeks after meeting Profumo at Cliveden, she also began an affair with the war minister. There is no evidence that either of these men paid her for sex, but Profumo once gave Keeler some money to buy her mother a birthday present.

After an intense few months, Profumo ended his affair with Keeler before the end of 1961. His indiscretions might never have come to public attention were it not for an incident involving Keeler that occurred in early 1963. Johnny Edgecombe, a West Indian marijuana dealer, was arrested for shooting up the exterior of Ward’s London flat after Keeler, his ex-lover, refused to let him in. The press gave considerable coverage to the incident and subsequent trial, and rumors were soon abounding about Keeler’s earlier relationship with Profumo. When Keeler confirmed reports of her affair with Profumo, and admitted a concurrent relationship with Ivanov, what had been cocktail-party gossip grew into a scandal with serious security connotations.

On March 21, 1963, Colonel George Wigg, a Labour MP for Dudley, raised the issue in the House of Commons, inviting the member of government in question to affirm or deny the rumors of his improprieties. Wigg forced Profumo’s hand, not, he claimed, to embarrass the Conservative government but because the Ivanov connection was a matter of national security. Behind closed doors, however, British intelligence had already concluded that Profumo had not compromised national security in any way and found little evidence implicating Ivanov as a spy. Nevertheless, Wigg had raised the issue, and Profumo had no choice but to stand up before Parliament on March 22 and make a statement. He vehemently denied the charges, saying “there was no impropriety whatsoever in my acquaintanceship with Miss Keeler.” To drive home his point, he continued, “I shall not hesitate to issue writs for libel and slander if scandalous allegations are made or repeated outside the House.”

Profumo’s convincing denial defused the scandal for several weeks, but in May Dr. Stephen Ward went on trial in London on charges of prostituting Keeler and other young women. In the highly sensationalized trial, Keeler testified under oath about her relationship with Profumo. Ward also wrote Harold Wilson, leader of the Labour opposition in Parliament, and affirmed that Profumo had lied to the House of Commons. On June 4, Profumo returned from a holiday in Italy with his wife and confessed to Conservative leaders that Miss Keeler had been his mistress and that his March 22 statement to the Commons was untrue. On June 5, he resigned as war minister.

Prime Minister Macmillan was widely criticized for his handling of the Profumo scandal. In the press and in Parliament, Macmillan was condemned as being old, out-of-touch, and incompetent. In October, he resigned under pressure from his own government. He was replaced by Conservative Alec Douglas-Home, but in the general election in 1964 the Conservatives were swept from power by Harold Wilson’s Labour Party.

Dr. Stephen Ward fell into a coma after attempting suicide by an overdose of pills. In his absence, he was found guilty of living off the immoral earnings of prostitution and died shortly after without regaining consciousness. Christine Keeler was convicted of perjury in a related trial and began a prison sentence in December 1963. John Profumo left politics after his resignation and dedicated himself to philanthropy in the East End of London. For his charitable work, Queen Elizabeth II named him a Commander of the British Empire, one of Britain’s highest honors, in 1975.

Keeler’s autobiography, The Truth at Last: My Story was published in 2001. Profumo died on March 10, 2006, two days after suffering a stroke.

21 March 1963

Alcatraz Federal Penitentiary closes.

On March 21, 1963, the Alcatraz Island federal prison in San Francisco Bay was emptied of its inmates and closed at the order of Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy.

Alcatraz, also known as “The Rock,” had housed some of America’s most dangerous felons, since it opened in 1934.

Alcatraz had previously served as a fortress to protect the San Francisco Bay area and also was the home of the first operational lighthouse on the West Coast.

The Army gave control of Alcatraz to the U.S. Justice Department in 1933 so it could be used as a federal prison for inmates deemed too dangerous for other U.S. prisons, according to www.history.com.

Alcatraz had held some famous inmates such as Al “Scarface” Capone, George “Machine Gun” Kelly and gangster Alvin “Creepy Karpis” Karpowicz who was listed as “Public Enemy No. 1,” according to history.com.

Alcatraz was shut down in 1963 because its operating costs were higher than other prisons and exposure to the salty sea air was taking a toll on the buildings.

The 1979 movie “Escape from Alcatraz” starring Clinton Eastwood was an adaptation of the 1963 non-fiction book by J. Campbell Bruce about the 1962 prisoner escape from Alcatraz.

According to history.com, 36 inmates attempted to escape over the years.

“According to the U.S. Marshals Service, only three remain unaccounted for: Frank Morris and John and Clarence Anglin, who spent months digging out of their cells with crude tools before escaping on June 11, 1962, in one of the most famous prison breaks in history.”

Alcatraz Island today is a popular tourist attraction and is part of the National Park Service.

18 November 1963

The first push-button telephone goes into service.


Bell Telephone introduced the first commercial push-button telephone on November 18, 1963. It was installed first in Carnegie and Greensburg, Pennsylvania, just outside of Pittsburgh. The push-button phone replaced the rotary dial phone, which had been in use for decades. Customers had to be convinced to use the new phones. Bell was quick off the mark with their interactive display from the 1963 Seattle World’s Fair, showing why users should switch to the new push-button phones.

The push-button telephone was only one part of the package that completed the modern telephone system. One other major part was automating the signals sent down the wire after you pushed the buttons. To fill this gap, touch-tone dialing was also introduced on November 18, 1963 to speed the transmission of telephone numbers. Rotary dial phones had used pulse dialing, a much slower method of routing a call to an exchange to connect with another number.

Until rotary dial phones were introduced, telephone operators at an exchange grabbed plugs on the end of long cord and pushed them into a jack on a board, connecting someone placing a call with the party they were calling, or with a long-distance operator in another city. While I was a student at the Illinois Institute of Technology in the mid-1960s, I had a part-time job as the night shift operator on the internal version of such a switchboard inside the University Club of Chicago, connecting members in their rooms with other rooms, the dining room, room service or an outside line by inserting a plug into a jack.

17 March 1963

Mount Agung in Bali erupts, killing more than 1000 people.

 photo agung_zpsf4ggwvup.jpg

Mt. Agung, the famous landmark of Bali, Indonesia erupted violently on March 17, 1963 generating pyroclastic flows that destroyed many villages along the slopes of the volcano and killing 1,584. The mountain remains a serious threat to all residents of this beautiful island.

Mount Agung or Gunung Agung is a volcano in Bali, Indonesia. This stratovolcano is the highest point on the island. It dominates the surrounding area, influencing the climate. The clouds come from the west and Agung takes their water so that the west is lush and green while the east dry and barren. The Balinese believe that Mount Agung is a replica of Mount Meru, the central axis of the universe. One legend holds that the mountain is a fragment of Meru brought to Bali by the first Hindus. The most important temple on Bali, Pura Besakih, is located high on the slopes of Gunung Agung.

Gunung Agung last erupted in 1963-1964 and is still active, with a large and very deep crater which occasionally belches smoke and ash. From a distance, the mountain appears to be perfectly conical. From the peak of the mountain, it is possible to see the peak of Mount Rinjani on the island of Lombok, although both mountains are frequently covered in clouds.

12 February 1963

Construction starts on the Gateway Arch in St Louis, Missouri.

The Gateway Arch is a 630-foot monument in St. Louis in the U.S. state of Missouri. Clad in stainless steel and built in the form of an inverted, weighted catenary arch,it is the world’s tallest arch, the tallest man-made monument in the Western Hemisphere, and Missouri’s tallest accessible building. Built as a monument to the westward expansion of the United States, and officially dedicated to “the American people,” it is the centerpiece of the Jefferson National Expansion Memorial and has become an internationally recognized symbol of St. Louis, as well as a popular tourist destination.

The Arch was designed by Finnish-American architect Eero Saarinen in 1947; construction began on February 12, 1963, and was completed on October 28, 1965, for $13 million. The monument opened to the public on June 10, 1967. It is located at the site of St. Louis’ founding on the west bank of the Mississippi River.The Arch has served as the site for multiple incidents, accidents, and stunts, and following the Oklahoma City bombing of 1995, and the September 11 attacks has received a number of security related upgrades.

26 December 1963

The Beatles’ “I Want to Hold Your Hand” is released in the USA.

This was the first Beatles song to catch on in America. In 1963, the Beatles became stars in England, but couldn’t break through in the US. They couldn’t get a major label to distribute their singles in America, so songs like “Love Me Do” and “She Loves You” were issued on small labels and flopped, even though they were hits in England. By February 1964, America finally took notice of The Beatles and bought this single in droves, giving them their first US hit. It sold better in the first 10 days of release in the US than any other British single, and remains the best-selling Beatles single in the United States, moving over 12 million copies.

The Beatles celebrated madly when they found out they were #1 in America. They came to America for the first time in February 1964, a week after this hit #1, and having the top single gave them a huge boost. Conquering the US was, and still is, a big deal for British bands. Many groups that are huge in the UK (Oasis, Blur) never really catch on in America.In the first three days after its release, 250,000 copies had been sold; 10,000 were reportedly sold every hour in New York City.