prague spring involved the warsaw pact invasion of

The Prague Spring (Czech: Pražské jaro, Slovak: Pražská jar) was a period of political liberalization in Czechoslovakia during the era of its domination by the Soviet Union after World War II. It began on 5 January 1968, when reformist Alexander Dubček was elected First Secretary of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia (KSČ), and continued until 21 August when the Soviet Union and other members of the Warsaw Pact invaded the country to halt the reforms.

Warsaw Pact invasion of Czechoslovakia

Warsaw Pact victory

Warsaw Pact countries: Soviet Union Bulgaria Poland Hungary

The Warsaw Pact invasion of Czechoslovakia, officially known as Operation Danube, was a joint invasion of Czechoslovakia by five Warsaw Pact nations – the Soviet Union, Bulgaria, Hungary, East Germany and Poland – on the night of 20–21 August 1968.[16] Approximately 250,000[4] Warsaw pact troops attacked Czechoslovakia that night, with Romania and Albania refusing to participate. East German forces, except for a small number of specialists, did not participate in the invasion because they were ordered from Moscow not to cross the Czechoslovak border just hours before the invasion.[1] 137 Czechoslovakian civilians were killed[12] and 500 seriously wounded during the occupation.[13]

The invasion successfully stopped Alexander Dubček's Prague Spring liberalisation reforms and strengthened the authority of the authoritarian wing within the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia (KSČ). The foreign policy of the Soviet Union during this era was known as the Brezhnev Doctrine.[17]

The process of de-Stalinization in Czechoslovakia had begun under Antonín Novotný in the late 1950s and early 1960s, but had progressed more slowly than in most other states of the Eastern Bloc.[18] Following the lead of Nikita Khrushchev, Novotný proclaimed the completion of socialism, and the new constitution,[19] accordingly, adopted the name Czechoslovak Socialist Republic. The pace of change, however, was sluggish; the rehabilitation of Stalinist-era victims, such as those convicted in the Slánský trials, may have been considered as early as 1963, but did not take place until 1967.

In the early 1960s, Czechoslovakia underwent an economic downturn. The Soviet model of industrialization applied poorly to Czechoslovakia. Czechoslovakia was already quite industrialized before World War II and the Soviet model mainly took into account less developed economies. NovotnÃ½'s attempt at restructuring the economy, the 1965 New Economic Model, spurred increased demand for political reform as well.

As the strict regime eased its rules, the Union of Czechoslovak Writers cautiously began to air discontent, and in the union's gazette, Literární noviny, members suggested that literature should be independent of Party doctrine.
In June 1967, a small fraction of the Czech writer's union sympathized with radical socialists, specifically Ludvík Vaculík, Milan Kundera, Jan Procházka, Antonín Jaroslav Liehm, Pavel Kohout and Ivan Klíma.
A few months later, at a party meeting, it was decided that administrative actions against the writers who openly expressed support of reformation would be taken. Since only a small part of the union held these beliefs, the remaining members were relied upon to discipline their colleagues.  Control over Literární noviny and several other publishing houses was transferred to the Ministry of Culture, and even members of the party who later became major reformers – including Dubček – endorsed these moves.

The Prague Spring reforms were a strong attempt by Dubček to grant additional rights to the citizens of Czechoslovakia in an act of partial decentralization of the economy and democratization. The freedoms granted included a loosening of restrictions on the media, speech and travel. After national discussion of dividing the country into a federation of three republics, Bohemia, Moravia-Silesia and Slovakia, Dubček oversaw the decision to split into two, the Czech Republic and Slovak Republic.[20] This was the only formal change that survived the end of Prague Spring, though the relative success of the nonviolent resistance undoubtedly prefigured and facilitated the peaceful transition to liberal democracy with the collapse of Soviet hegemony in 1989.

The reforms, especially the decentralization of administrative authority, were not received well by the Soviets, who, after failed negotiations, sent half a million Warsaw Pact troops and tanks to occupy the country. A large wave of emigration swept the nation. A spirited non-violent resistance was mounted throughout the country, involving attempted fraternization, painting over and turning street signs (on one occasion an entire invasion force from Poland was routed back out of the country after a day's wandering, another force went around in a circle), defiance of various curfews, etc.  While the Soviet military had predicted that it would take four days to subdue the country the resistance held out for eight months, and was only circumvented by diplomatic stratagems.  There were sporadic acts of violence and several suicides by self-immolation (such as that of Jan Palach), but there was no military resistance. Czechoslovakia remained controlled until 1989, when the velvet revolution ended pro-Soviet rule peacefully, undoubtedly drawing upon the successes of the non-violent resistance twenty years earlier.  The resistance also became an iconic example of civilian-based defense, which, along with unarmed civilian peacekeeping constitute the two ways that nonviolence can be and occasionally has been applied directly to military or paramilitary threats.

After the invasion, Czechoslovakia entered a period of normalization: subsequent leaders attempted to restore the political and economic values that had prevailed before Dubček gained control of the KSČ. Gustáv Husák, who replaced Dubček and also became president, reversed almost all of Dubček's reforms. The Prague Spring inspired music and literature such as the work of Václav Havel, Karel Husa, Karel Kryl, and Milan Kundera's novel The Unbearable Lightness of Being.

Leonid Brezhnev and the leadership of the Warsaw Pact countries were worried that the unfolding liberalizations in Czechoslovakia, including the ending of censorship and political surveillance by the secret police, would be detrimental to their interests. The first such fear was that Czechoslovakia would defect from the bloc, injuring the Soviet Union's position in a possible war with the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO). Not only would the loss result in a lack of strategic depth for the USSR,[21] but it would also mean that it could not tap Czechoslovakia's industrial base in a potential war.[22] Czechoslovak leaders had no intention of leaving the Warsaw Pact, but Moscow felt it could not be certain exactly what Prague's intentions were.

Other fears included the spread of liberalization and unrest elsewhere in Eastern Europe. The Warsaw Pact countries feared that if the Prague Spring reforms went unchecked, then those ideals might very well spread to Poland and East Germany, upsetting the status quo there as well. Within the Soviet Union, nationalism in the republics of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Ukraine was already causing problems, and many were worried that events in Prague might exacerbate those problems.[23] KGB chairman Yuri Andropov and Ukrainian leaders Petro Shelest and Nikolai Podgorny were the most vehement proponents of military intervention.[24]

In addition, part of Czechoslovakia bordered Austria and West Germany, which were on the other side of the Iron Curtain. This meant both that foreign agents could potentially slip into Czechoslovakia and into any member of the Communist Bloc and that defectors could slip out to the West.[25] The final concern emerged directly from the lack of censorship; writers whose work had been censored in the Soviet Union could simply go to Prague or Bratislava and air their grievances there, circumventing the Soviet Union's censorship.

As President Antonín Novotný was losing support, Alexander Dubček, First Secretary of the regional Communist Party of Slovakia, and economist Ota Šik challenged him at a meeting of the Central Committee. Novotný then invited Soviet premier Leonid Brezhnev to Prague that December, seeking support; but Brezhnev was surprised at the extent of the opposition to Novotný and thus supported his removal as Czechoslovakia's leader. Dubček replaced Novotný as First Secretary on 5 January 1968. On 22 March 1968, Novotný resigned his presidency and was replaced by Ludvík Svoboda, who later gave consent to the reforms.

Early signs of change were few.[citation needed] When the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia (KSČ) Presidium member Josef Smrkovský was interviewed in a Rudé Právo article, entitled "What Lies Ahead", he insisted that Dubček's appointment at the January Plenum would further the goals of socialism and maintain the working class nature of the Communist Party.

On the 20th anniversary of Czechoslovakia's "Victorious February", Dubček delivered a speech explaining the need for change following the triumph of socialism. He emphasized the need to "enforce the leading role of the party more effectively"[26] and acknowledged that, despite Klement Gottwald's urgings for better relations with society, the Party had too often made heavy-handed rulings on trivial issues. Dubček declared the party's mission was "to build an advanced socialist society on sound economic foundations ... a socialism that corresponds to the historical democratic traditions of Czechoslovakia, in accordance with the experience of other communist parties ..."[26]

In April, Dubček launched an "Action Programme" of liberalizations, which included increasing freedom of the press, freedom of speech, and freedom of movement, with economic emphasis on consumer goods and the possibility of a multiparty government. The programme was based on the view that "Socialism cannot mean only liberation of the working people from the domination of exploiting class relations, but must make more provisions for a fuller life of the personality than any bourgeois democracy."[27] It would limit the power of the secret police[28] and provide for the federalization of the ČSSR into two equal nations.[29] The programme also covered foreign policy, including both the maintenance of good relations with Western countries and cooperation with the Soviet Union and other Eastern Bloc nations.[30] It spoke of a ten-year transition through which democratic elections would be made possible and a new form of democratic socialism would replace the status quo.[31]

Those who drafted the Action Programme were careful not to criticize the actions of the post-war Communist regime, only to point out policies that they felt had outlived their usefulness.[32] For instance, the immediate post-war situation had required "centralist and directive-administrative methods"[32] to fight against the "remnants of the bourgeoisie."[32] Since the "antagonistic classes"[32] were said to have been defeated with the achievement of socialism, these methods were no longer necessary.  Reform was needed, for the Czechoslovak economy to join the "scientific-technical revolution in the world"[32] rather than relying on Stalinist-era heavy industry, labour power, and raw materials.[32] Furthermore, since internal class conflict had been overcome, workers could now be duly rewarded for their qualifications and technical skills without contravening Marxism-Leninism. The Programme suggested it was now necessary to ensure important positions were "filled by capable, educated socialist expert cadres" in order to compete with capitalism.[32]

Although it was stipulated that reform must proceed under KSČ direction, popular pressure mounted to implement reforms immediately.[33] Radical elements became more vocal: anti-Soviet polemics appeared in the press (after the abolishment of censorship was formally confirmed by law of 26 June  1968),[31] the Social Democrats began to form a separate party, and new unaffiliated political clubs were created. Party conservatives urged repressive measures, but Dubček counselled moderation and re-emphasized KSČ leadership.[34] At the Presidium of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia in April, Dubček announced a political programme of "socialism with a human face".[35] In May, he announced that the Fourteenth Party Congress would convene in an early session on 9 September. The congress would incorporate the Action Programme into the party statutes, draft a federalization law, and elect a new Central Committee.[36]

Dubček's reforms guaranteed freedom of the press, and political commentary was allowed for the first time in mainstream media.[37] At the time of the Prague Spring, Czechoslovak exports were declining in competitiveness, and Dubček's reforms planned to solve these troubles by mixing planned and market economies. Within the party, there were varying opinions on how this should proceed; certain economists wished for a more mixed economy while others wanted the economy to remain mostly socialist. Dubček continued to stress the importance of economic reform proceeding under Communist Party rule.[38]

On 27 June Ludvík Vaculík, a leading author and journalist, published a manifesto titled The Two Thousand Words. It expressed concern about conservative elements within the KSČ and so-called "foreign" forces. Vaculík called on the people to take the initiative in implementing the reform programme.[39] Dubček, the party Presidium, the National Front, and the cabinet denounced this manifesto.[40]

The reduction and later complete abolition of the censorship on 4. March 1968 was one of the most important steps towards the reforms. It was for the first time in Czech history the censorship was abolished and it was probably the only reform fully implemented, albeit only for a short period. From the instrument of Party's propaganda media quickly became the instrument of criticism of the regime.[44][45]

Freedom of the press also opened the door for the first honest look at Czechoslovakia's past by Czechoslovakia's people. Many of the investigations centered on the country's history under communism, especially in the instance of the Joseph Stalin-period.[42] In another television appearance, Goldstucker presented both doctored and undoctored photographs of former communist leaders who had been purged, imprisoned, or executed and thus erased from communist history.[43] The Writer's Union also formed a committee in April 1968, headed by the poet Jaroslav Seifert, to investigate the persecution of writers after the Communist takeover in February 1948 and rehabilitate the literary figures into the Union, bookstores and libraries, and the literary world.[46][47] Discussions on the current state of communism and abstract ideas such as freedom and identity were also becoming more common; soon, non-party publications began appearing, such as the trade union daily Prace (Labour). This was also helped by the Journalists Union, which by March 1968 had already convinced the Central Publication Board, the government censor, to allow editors to receive uncensored subscriptions for foreign papers, allowing for a more international dialogue around the news.[48]

The press, the radio, and the television also contributed to these discussions by hosting meetings where students and young workers could ask questions of writers such as Goldstucker, Pavel Kohout, and Jan Prochazka and political victims such as Josef Smrkovský, Zdenek Hejzlar, and Gustav Husak.[49] Television also broadcast meetings between former political prisoners and the communist leaders from the secret police or prisons where they were held.[43] Most importantly, this new freedom of the press and the introduction of television into the lives of everyday Czechoslovak citizens moved the political dialogue from the intellectual to the popular sphere.

The Soviet leadership at first tried to stop or limit the impact of Dubček's initiatives through a series of negotiations. Czechoslovakia and the Soviet Union agreed to bilateral talks to be held in July 1968 at Čierna nad Tisou, near the Slovak-Soviet border.[50]

At the meeting, with attendance of Brezhnev, Alexei Kosygin, Nikolai Podgorny, Mikhail Suslov and others on the Soviet side and Dubček, Ludvík Svoboda, Oldřich Černík, Josef Smrkovský and others on the Czechoslovak side, Dubček defended the program of the reformist wing of the KSČ while pledging commitment to the Warsaw Pact and Comecon. The KSČ leadership, however, was divided between vigorous reformers (Josef Smrkovský, Oldřich Černík, Josef Špaček and František Kriegel) who supported Dubček, and conservatives (Vasil Biľak, Drahomír Kolder, and Oldřich Švestka) who represented an anti-reformist stance. Brezhnev decided on compromise. The KSČ delegates reaffirmed their loyalty to the Warsaw Pact and promised to curb "anti-socialist" tendencies, prevent the revival of the Czechoslovak Social Democratic Party, and control the press by the re-imposition of a higher level of censorship.[50] In return the USSR agreed to withdraw their troops (still stationed in Czechoslovakia since the June 1968 maneuvers) and permit 9 September party congress.

On 3 August, representatives from the Soviet Union, East Germany, People's Republic of Poland, Hungary, Bulgaria, and Czechoslovakia met in Bratislava and signed the Bratislava Declaration.[51] The declaration affirmed unshakable fidelity to Marxism-Leninism and proletarian internationalism and declared an implacable struggle against bourgeois ideology and all "antisocialist" forces.[52] The Soviet Union expressed its intention to intervene in a Warsaw Pact country if a bourgeois system—a pluralist system of several political parties representing different factions of the capitalist class—was ever established.[53] After the Bratislava conference, Soviet troops left Czechoslovak territory but remained along Czechoslovak borders.[52]

As these talks proved unsatisfactory, the USSR began to consider a military alternative. The Soviet Union's policy of compelling the socialist governments of its satellite states to subordinate their national interests to those of the Eastern Bloc (through military force if needed) became known as the Brezhnev Doctrine.[53]

The United States and NATO largely turned a blind eye to the evolving situation in Czechoslovakia. While the Soviet Union was worried that it might lose an ally, the United States had absolutely no desire to gain it. President Lyndon B. Johnson had already involved the United States in the Vietnam War and was unlikely to be able to drum up support for a potential conflict in Czechoslovakia. Also, he wanted to pursue an arms control treaty with the Soviets, SALT. He needed a willing partner in Moscow in order to reach such an agreement, and he did not wish to potentially risk that treaty for Czechoslovakia.[54] For these reasons, the United States made it clear that it would not intervene on behalf of the Prague Spring, giving the USSR a free hand to do as it pleased.

At approximately 11 pm on 20 August 1968,[55] Eastern Bloc armies from four Warsaw Pact countries – the Soviet Union, Bulgaria,[56] Poland and Hungary – invaded Czechoslovakia. That night, 250,000 Warsaw Pact troops and 2,000 tanks entered the country.[5] The total number of invading troops eventually reached 500,000.[6] Romania did not take part in the invasion,[57] nor did Albania, which subsequently withdrew from the Warsaw Pact over the matter.[58] The participation of the German Democratic Republic was cancelled just hours before the invasion.[1] The decision for the non-participation of the East German Army in the invasion was made on short notice by Brezhnev following requests by high-ranking Czechoslovak opponents of Dubcek who feared much larger Czechoslovak resistance if German troops were present on Czechoslovak territory, due to previous Czech experience with the German occupation of Czechoslovakia.[59]

The invasion was well planned and coordinated; simultaneously with the border crossing by ground forces, a Soviet airborne division (VDV) captured Prague Václav Havel Airport (at the time called Ruzyne International Airport) in the early hours of the invasion. It began with a special flight from Moscow which carried more than 100 plain clothes agents. They quickly secured the airport and prepared the way for the huge forthcoming airlift, in which An-12 transport aircraft began arriving and unloading Soviet airborne troops equipped with artillery and light tanks.

As the operation at the airport continued, columns of tanks and motorized rifle troops headed toward Prague and other major centers, meeting no resistance. The bulk of the invading forces were from the Soviet Union supported by other countries from the communist bloc. Among them were 28,000 troops[60] of the Polish 2nd Army from the Silesian Military District, commanded by general Florian Siwicki, and all invading Hungarian troops were withdrawn by 31 October.[61]

During the attack of the Warsaw Pact armies, 137 Czechs and Slovaks were killed (19 of those in Slovakia)[62] and hundreds were wounded. Alexander Dubček called upon his people not to resist. He was arrested and taken to Moscow along with several of his colleagues. Dubček and most of the reformers were returned to Prague on 27 August, and Dubček retained his post as the party's first secretary until he was forced to resign in April 1969 following the Czechoslovak Hockey Riots.

The invasion was followed by a wave of emigration, largely of highly qualified people, unseen before and stopped shortly after (estimate: 70,000 immediately, 300,000 in total).[63] Western countries allowed these people to immigrate without complications.

The Dubček regime took no steps to forestall a potential invasion, despite ominous troop movements by the Warsaw Pact. The Czechoslovak leadership believed that the Soviet Union and its allies would not invade, having believed that the summit at Čierna nad Tisou had smoothed out the differences between the two sides.[64] They also believed that any invasion would be too costly, both because of domestic support for the reforms and because the international political outcry would be too significant, especially with the World Communist Conference coming up in November of that year. Czechoslovakia could have raised the costs of such an invasion by drumming up international support or making military preparations such as blocking roads and ramping up security of their airports, but they decided not to, paving the way for the invasion.[65]

Although on the night of the invasion, the Czechoslovak Presidium declared that Warsaw Pact troops had crossed the border without the knowledge of the ČSSR Government, the Soviet Press printed an unsigned request, allegedly by Czechoslovak party and state leaders, for "immediate assistance, including assistance with armed forces".[66] At the 14th KSČ Party Congress (conducted secretly, immediately following the intervention), it was emphasized that no member of the leadership had invited the intervention. At the time, a number of commentators believed the letter was fake or non-existent.

In the early 1990s, however, the Russian government gave the new Czechoslovak President, Václav Havel, a copy of a letter of invitation addressed to Soviet authorities and signed by KSČ members Biľak, Švestka, Kolder, Indra, and Kapek. It claimed that "right-wing" media were "fomenting a wave of nationalism and chauvinism, and are provoking an anti-communist and anti-Soviet psychosis". It formally asked the Soviets to "lend support and assistance with all means at your disposal" to save the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic "from the imminent danger of counterrevolution".[67]

A 1992 Izvestia article claimed that candidate Presidium member Antonin Kapek gave Leonid Brezhnev a letter at the Soviet-Czechoslovak Čierna nad Tisou talks in late July which appealed for "fraternal help". A second letter was supposedly delivered by Biľak to Ukrainian Party leader Petro Shelest during the August Bratislava conference "in a lavatory rendezvous arranged through the KGB station chief".[67] This letter was signed by the same five as Kapek's letter, mentioned above.

Long before the invasion, planning for a coup was undertaken by Indra, Kolder, and Biľak, among others, often at the Soviet embassy and at the Party recreation centre at Orlík Dam.[67] When these men had managed to convince a majority of the Presidium (six of eleven voting members) to side with them against Alexander Dubček's reformists, they asked the USSR to launch a military invasion. The USSR leadership was even considering waiting until 26 August Slovak Party Congress, but the Czechoslovak conspirators "specifically requested the night of the 20th".[67]

The plan was to unfold as follows. A debate would unfold in response to the Kašpar report on the state of the country, during which conservative members would insist that Dubček present two letters he had received from the USSR, letters which listed promises he had made at the Čierna nad Tisou talks but had failed to keep. Dubček's concealment of such important letters, and his unwillingness to keep his promises would lead to a vote of confidence which the now conservative majority would win, seizing power, and issue a request for Soviet assistance in preventing a counterrevolution. It was this formal request, drafted in Moscow, which was published in Pravda on 22 August without the signatories. All the USSR needed to do was suppress the Czechoslovak military and any violent resistance.[68]

With this plan in mind, the 16â€“17 August Soviet Politburo meeting passed a resolution to "provide help to the Communist Party and people of Czechoslovakia through military force".[68] At 18 August Warsaw Pact meeting, Brezhnev announced that the intervention would go ahead on the night of 20 August, and asked for "fraternal support", which the national leaders of Bulgaria, East Germany, Hungary, and Poland duly offered.

The coup, however, did not go according to plan. Kolder intended to review the Kašpar report early in the meeting, but Dubček and Špaček, suspicious of Kolder, adjusted the agenda so the upcoming 14th Party Congress could be covered before any discussion on recent reforms or Kašpar's report. Discussion of the Congress dragged on, and before the conspirators had a chance to request a confidence vote, early news of the invasion reached the Presidium.[66]

An anonymous warning was transmitted by the Czechoslovak Ambassador to Hungary, Jozef Púčik, approximately six hours before Soviet troops crossed the border at midnight.[66] When the news arrived, the solidarity of conservative coalition crumbled. When the Presidium proposed a declaration condemning the invasion, two key members of the conspiracy, Jan Pillar and František Barbírek, switched sides to support Dubček. With their help, declaration against the invasion won with a 7:4 majority.[67]

The conservatives asked Svoboda to create an "emergency government" but since they had not won a clear majority of support, he refused. Instead, he and Gustáv Husák traveled to Moscow on 23 August to insist Dubček and Černík should be included in a solution to the conflict. After days of negotiations, all members of the Czechoslovak delegation (including all the highest-ranked officials President Svoboda, First Secretary Dubček, Prime Minister Černík and Chairman of the National Assembly Smrkovský) but one (František Kriegel)[70] accepted the "Moscow Protocol", and signed their commitment to its fifteen points. The Protocol demanded the suppression of opposition groups, the full reinstatement of censorship, and the dismissal of specific reformist officials.[68] It did not, however, refer to the situation in the ČSSR as "counterrevolutionary" nor did it demand a reversal of the post-January course.[68]

Popular opposition was expressed in numerous spontaneous acts of nonviolent resistance. In Prague and other cities throughout the republic, Czechs and Slovaks greeted Warsaw Pact soldiers with arguments and reproaches. Every form of assistance, including the provision of food and water, was denied to the invaders. Signs, placards, and graffiti drawn on walls and pavements denounced the invaders, the Soviet leaders, and suspected collaborationists

Initially, some civilians tried to argue with the invading troops, but this met with little or no success. After the USSR used photographs of these discussions as proof that the invasion troops were being greeted amicably, secret Czechoslovak broadcasting stations discouraged the practice, reminding the people that "pictures are silent".[72] The protests in reaction to the invasion lasted only about seven days. Explanations for the fizzling of these public outbursts mostly centre on demoralisation of the population, whether from the intimidation of all the enemy troops and tanks or from being abandoned by their leaders. Many Czechoslovaks saw the signing of the Moscow Protocol as treasonous.[73] Another common explanation is that, due to the fact that most of Czech society was middle class, the cost of continued resistance meant giving up a comfortable lifestyle, which was too high a price to pay.[74]

The generalised resistance caused the Soviet Union to abandon its original plan to oust the First Secretary. Dubček, who had been arrested on the night of 20 August, was taken to Moscow for negotiations. It was agreed that Dubček would remain in office, but he was no longer free to pursue liberalisation as he had before the invasion.

On 19 January 1969, student Jan Palach set himself on fire in Wenceslas Square in Prague to protest the renewed suppression of free speech.

Finally, on 17 April 1969, Dubček was replaced as First Secretary by Gustáv Husák, and a period of "Normalization" began. Pressure from the Soviet Union pushed politicians to either switch loyalties or simply give up. In fact, the very group that voted in Dubček and put the reforms in place were mostly the same people who annulled the program and replaced Dubček with Husák. Husák reversed Dubček's reforms, purged the party of its liberal members, and dismissed the professional and intellectual elites who openly expressed disagreement with the political turnaround from public offices and jobs.

On 25 August, at the Red Square, eight protesters carried banners with anti-invasion slogans. The demonstrators were arrested and later punished, as the protest was dubbed "anti-Soviet".[75][76]

One unintended consequence of the invasion was that many within the Soviet State security apparatus and Intelligence Services were shocked and outraged at the invasion and several KGB/GRU defectors and spies such as Oleg Gordievsky, Vasili Mitrokhin, and Dmitri Polyakov have pointed out the 1968 invasion as their motivation for cooperating with the Western Intelligence agencies.

In the People's Republic of Poland, on 8 September 1968, Ryszard Siwiec immolated himself in Warsaw during a harvest festival at the 10th-Anniversary Stadium in protest against the Warsaw Pact's invasion of Czechoslovakia and the totalitarianism of the Stalinist government.[77][78] Siwiec did not survive.[77]

A more pronounced effect took place in the Socialist Republic of Romania, which did not take part in the invasion. Nicolae Ceauşescu, who was already a staunch opponent of Soviet influence and had previously declared himself on Dubček's side, held a public speech in Bucharest on the day of the invasion, depicting Soviet policies in harsh terms. This response consolidated Romania's independent voice in the next two decades, especially after Ceauşescu encouraged the population to take up arms in order to meet any similar manoeuvre in the country: he received an enthusiastic initial response, with many people, who were by no means Communist, willing to enrol in the newly formed paramilitary Patriotic Guards.

In the German Democratic Republic, the invasion aroused discontent mostly among young people who had hoped that Czechoslovakia would pave the way for a more liberal socialism.[79] However, isolated protests were quickly stopped by the Volkspolizei and Stasi.[80]

Albania responded in opposite fashion: already feuding with Moscow over suggestions that the country should focus on agriculture to the detriment of industrial development, and concerned that Moscow was becoming too liberal in its dealings with Yugoslavia (which, by that time, Albania regarded as a threatening neighbor and had branded in propaganda as "imperialist"), it withdrew from the Warsaw Pact entirely. Economic fallout from this move was mitigated somewhat by a strengthening of Albanian relations with the People's Republic of China, which was itself on increasingly strained terms with the Soviet Union.

The night of the invasion, Canada, Denmark, France, Paraguay, the United Kingdom, and the United States all requested a meeting of the United Nations Security Council.[81] That afternoon, the council met to hear the Czechoslovak Ambassador Jan Muzik denounce the invasion. Soviet Ambassador Jacob Malik insisted the Warsaw Pact actions were those of "fraternal assistance" against "antisocial forces".[81] The next day, several countries suggested a resolution condemning the intervention and calling for immediate withdrawal. US Ambassador George Ball, suggested that "the kind of fraternal assistance that the Soviet Union is according to Czechoslovakia is exactly the same kind that Cain gave to Abel".[81]

Ball accused Soviet delegates of filibustering to put off the vote until the occupation was complete. Malik continued to speak, ranging in topics from US exploitation of Latin America's raw materials to statistics on Czech commodity trading.[81] Eventually, a vote was taken. Ten members supported the motion; Algeria, India, and Pakistan abstained; the USSR (with veto power) and Hungary opposed it. Canadian delegates immediately introduced another motion asking for a UN representative to travel to Prague and work for the release of the imprisoned Czechoslovak leaders.[81] Malik accused Western countries of hypocrisy, asking "who drowned the fields, villages, and cities of Vietnam in blood?"[81] By 26 August, another vote had not taken place, but a new Czechoslovak representative requested the whole issue be removed from the Security Council's agenda.[citation needed]

Although the United States insisted at the UN that Warsaw Pact aggression was unjustifiable, its position was compromised by its own actions. Only three years earlier, US delegates to the UN had insisted that the overthrow of the leftist government of the Dominican Republic, as part of Operation Power Pack, was an issue to be worked out by the Organization of American States (OAS) without UN interference. The OAS accepted adherence to Marxism–Leninism as an armed attack justifying self-defense by the United States.[81] American involvement in the Vietnam War led UN Secretary-General U Thant to draw further comparisons, suggesting that "if Russians were bombing and napalming the villages of Czechoslovakia" he might be more vocal in his denunciation.[81]

The United States government sent Shirley Temple Black, the famous child movie star, who became a diplomat in later life, to Prague in August 1968 to prepare to become the first United States Ambassador to a free Czechoslovakia. Two decades later, when Czechoslovakia became independent in 1989, Temple Black was finally recognized as the first American ambassador to a truly free Czechoslovakia.[82]

In Finland, a neutral country under some Soviet political influence at that time, the occupation caused a major scandal.[83]

Reactions from communist parties outside the Warsaw Pact were generally split. The Eurocommunist parties of Italy and Spain firmly denounced the occupation,[84] and even the Communist Party of France, which had pleaded for conciliation, expressed its disapproval about the Soviet intervention,[85] thereby publicly criticizing a Soviet action for the first time in its history.[citation needed] The Communist Party of Greece (KKE) suffered a major split over the internal disputes over the Prague Spring,[84] with the pro-Czech faction breaking ties with the Soviet leadership and founding the Eurocommunist KKE Interior. The Eurocommunist leadership of the Communist Party of Finland denounced the invasion as well, thereby however fuelling the internal disputes with its pro-Soviet minority faction, which eventually lead to the party's disintegration.[86] Others, including the Portuguese Communist Party, the South African Communist Party and the Communist Party USA, however supported the Soviet position.[84]

Christopher Hitchens recapitulized the repercussions of the Prague Spring to western Communism in 2008: "What became clear, however, was that there was no longer something that could be called the world Communist movement. It was utterly, irretrievably, hopelessly split. The main spring had broken. And the Prague Spring had broken it."[84]

In the history of Czechoslovakia, normalization (Czech: normalizace, Slovak: normalizácia) is a name commonly given to the period 1969–87. It was characterized by initial restoration of the conditions prevailing before the reform period led by Alexander Dubček (1963/1967 – 1968), first of all, the firm rule of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia, and subsequent preservation of this new status quo.

"Normalization" is sometimes used in a narrower sense to refer only to the period 1969 to 1971.

The official ideology of normalization is sometimes called Husakism after the Czechoslovak leader Gustáv Husák.

When Gustáv Husák replaced Alexander Dubček as leader of the KSČ in April 1969 after the military intervention of Warsaw Pact armies, his regime acted quickly to "normalize" the country's political situation. The chief objectives of Husák's normalization were the restoration of firm party rule and the reestablishment of Czechoslovakia's status as a committed member of the socialist bloc. The normalization process involved five interrelated steps:

Within a week of assuming power, Husák began to consolidate his leadership by ordering extensive purges of reformists still occupying key positions in the mass media, judiciary, social and mass organizations, lower party organs, and, finally, the highest levels of the KSČ. In the fall of 1969, twenty-nine liberals on the Central Committee  of the KSČ were replaced by conservatives. Among the liberals ousted was Dubček, who was dropped from the Presidium (the following year Dubček was expelled from the party; he subsequently became a minor functionary in Slovakia, where he still lived in 1987). Husák also consolidated his leadership by appointing potential rivals to the new government positions created as a result of the 1968 Constitutional Law of Federation (which created the Czech Socialist Republic and the Slovak Socialist Republic).

Once it had consolidated power, the regime moved quickly to implement other normalization policies. In the two years following the invasion, the new leadership revoked some reformist laws (such as the National Front Act and the Press Act) and simply did not enforce others. It returned economic enterprises, which had been given substantial independence during the Prague Spring, to centralized control through contracts based on central planning and production quotas. It reinstated extreme police control, a step that was reflected in the harsh treatment of demonstrators marking the first anniversary of the August intervention.

Finally, HusÃ¡k stabilized Czechoslovakia's relations with its allies by arranging frequent intrabloc exchanges and visits and redirecting Czechoslovakia's foreign economic ties toward greater involvement with socialist nations.

By May 1971, HusÃ¡k could report to the delegates attending the officially sanctioned Fourteenth Party Congress that the process of normalization had been completed satisfactorily and that Czechoslovakia was ready to proceed toward higher forms of socialism.

The first government to offer an apology was Hungary, on 11 August 1989. The Hungarian Socialist Workers' Party publicly published its opinion on the fundamentally wrong decision to invade Czechoslovakia. The House of the National Assembly of Poland in 1989, on the 21st anniversary of military intervention, adopted a resolution condemning the armed intervention. Another apology was issued by the People's Assembly of East Germany on 1 December 1989, where they apologized to the Czechoslovak people for their involvement in the military intervention. An apology from Bulgaria came on 2 December 1989.[87]

On 4 December 1989, Mikhail Gorbachev and other Warsaw Pact leaders drafted a statement calling the 1968 invasion a mistake. The statement, carried by the Soviet news agency Tass, said that sending in troops constituted "interference in the internal affairs of a sovereign Czechoslovakia and must be condemned."[88] The Soviet government also said that the 1968 action was "an unbalanced, inadequate approach, an interference in the affairs of a friendly country".[89]

This acknowledgement likely helped to encourage the popular revolutions that overthrew Communist governments in East Germany, Czechoslovakia, Poland, and Romania at the end of 1989 by providing assurance that no similar Soviet intervention would be repeated were such uprisings to occur.[citation needed]

The invasion was also condemned by the newly appointed Russian President Boris Yeltsin ("We condemn it as an aggression, as an attack on a sovereign, stand-up state as interference in its internal affairs").[87] During a state visit to Prague, on 1 March 2006, also Vladimir Putin said that the Russian Federation bore moral responsibility for the invasion, referring to his predecessor Boris Yeltsin's description of 1968 as an act of aggression: "When President Yeltsin visited the Czech Republic in 1993 he was not speaking just for himself, he was speaking for the Russian Federation and for the Russian people. Today, not only do we respect all agreements signed previously – we also share all the evaluations that were made at the beginning of the 1990s... I must tell you with absolute frankness – we do not, of course, bear any legal responsibility. But the moral responsibility is there, of course".[90]

On 23 May 2015, Russian state channel Russia-1 aired Warsaw Pact: Declassified Pages, a documentary that presented the invasion as a protective measure against a NATO coup.[91][92][93] Slovakia's Ministry of Foreign Affairs stated that the film "attempts to rewrite history and to falsify historical truths about such a dark chapter of our history."[94] František Šebej, the Slovak chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the National Council, stated that "They describe it as brotherly help aimed to prevent an invasion by NATO and fascism. Such Russian propaganda is hostile toward freedom and democracy, and also to us."[95] Czech President Miloš Zeman stated that "Russian TV lies, and no other comment that this is just a journalistic lie, can not be said".[96] Czech Foreign Minister Lubomír Zaorálek said that the film "grossly distorts" the facts.[93][97] Russian ambassador to the Czech Republic, Sergei Kiselyov, has distanced himself from the film and stated that the documentary does not express the official position of the Russian government.[98] One of the most popular Russian journals, Gazeta.ru, has described the document as biased and revisionist, which harms Russia.[99]


what is the main difference between the floor plans during the early christian and byzantine time

More complex and expensive works are seen, as the wealthy gradually converted, and more theological complexity appears, as Christianity became subject to acrimonious doctrinal disputes. At the same time a very different type of art is found in the new public churches that were now being constructed.  Somewhat by accident, the best group of survivals of these is from Rome where, together with Constantinople and Jesusalem, they were presumably at their most magnificent. Mosaic now becomes important; fortunately this survives far better than fresco, although it is vulnerable to well-meaning restoration and repair. It seems to have been an innovation of early Christian churches to put mosaics on the wall and use them for sacred subjects; previously the technique had essentially been used for floors and walls in gardens.  By the end of the period the style of gold background had developed that continued to characterize Byzantine images, and many Early Medieval Western ones.

Early Christian art and architecture

Early Christian art and architecture or Paleochristian art is the art produced by Christians or under Christian patronage from the earliest period of Christianity to, depending on the definition used, sometime between 260 and 525. In practice, identifiably Christian art only survives from the 2nd century onwards.[1] After 550 at the latest, Christian art is classified as Byzantine, or of some other regional type.[1][2]

It is hard to know when distinctly Christian art began. Prior to 100, Christians may have been constrained by their position as a persecuted group from producing durable works of art. Since Christianity was largely a religion of the lower classes in this period,[citation needed] the lack of surviving art may reflect a lack of funds for patronage, and simply small numbers of followers. The Old Testament restrictions against the production of graven (an idol or fetish carved in wood or stone) images (see also Idolatry and Christianity) may also have constrained Christians from producing art. Christians may have made or purchased art with pagan iconography, but given it Christian meanings, as they later did.  If this happened, "Christian" art would not be immediately recognizable as such.

Early Christianity used the same artistic media as the surrounding pagan culture. These media included fresco, mosaics, sculpture, and manuscript illumination. Early Christian art not only used Roman forms, it also used Roman styles. Late classical style included a proportional portrayal of the human body and impressionistic presentation of space. Late classical style is seen in early Christian frescos, such as those in the Catacombs of Rome, which include most examples of the earliest Christian art.[3][4][5]

Early Christian art and architecture adapted Roman artistic motifs and gave new meanings to what had been pagan symbols. Among the motifs adopted were the peacock, grapevines, and the "Good Shepherd". Early Christians also developed their own iconography, for example, such symbols as the fish (ikhthus), were not borrowed from pagan iconography.

Early Christian art is generally divided into two periods by scholars: before and after either the Edict of Milan of 313, bringing the so-called Triumph of the Church under Constantine, or the First Council of Nicea in 325.  The earlier period being called the Pre-Constantinian or Ante-Nicene Period and after being the period of the First seven Ecumenical Councils.[6] The end of the period of early Christian art, which is typically defined by art historians as being in the 5th–7th centuries, is thus a good deal later than the end of the period of early Christianity as typically defined by theologians and church historians, which is more often considered to end under Constantine, around 313–325.

During the persecution of Christians under the Roman Empire, Christian art was necessarily and deliberately furtive and ambiguous, using imagery that was shared with pagan culture but had a special meaning for Christians. The earliest surviving Christian art comes from the late 2nd to early 4th centuries on the walls of Christian tombs in the catacombs of Rome.  From literary evidence, there may well have been panel icons which, like almost all classical painting, have disappeared.  Initially Jesus was represented indirectly by pictogram symbols such as the Ichthys (fish), peacock, Lamb of God, or an anchor (the Labarum or Chi-Rho was a later development).  Later personified symbols were used, including Jonah, whose three days in the belly of the whale pre-figured the interval between the death and resurrection of Jesus, Daniel in the lion's den, or Orpheus' charming the animals. The image of "The Good Shepherd", a beardless youth in pastoral scenes collecting sheep, was the most common of these images, and was probably not understood as a portrait of the historical Jesus.[7] These images bear some resemblance to depictions of kouros figures in Greco-Roman art.  The "almost total absence from Christian monuments of the period of persecutions of the plain, unadorned cross" except in the disguised form of the anchor,[8] is notable.  The Cross, symbolizing Jesus' crucifixion on a cross, was not represented explicitly for several centuries, possibly because crucifixion was a punishment meted out to common criminals, but also because literary sources noted that it was a symbol recognised as specifically Christian, as the sign of the cross was made by Christians from very early on.

The popular conception that the Christian catacombs were "secret" or had to hide their affiliation is probably wrong; catacombs were large-scale commercial enterprises, usually sited just off major roads to the city, whose existence was well known.  The inexplicit symbolic nature of many early Christian visual motifs may have had a function of discretion in other contexts, but on tombs they probably reflect a lack of any other repertoire of Christian iconography.[9]

The dove is a symbol of peace and purity. It can be found with a halo or celestial light. In one of the earliest known Trinitarian images, "the Throne of God as a Trinitarian image" (a marble relief carved c. 400 CE in the collection of the Prussian Cultural Heritage Foundation), the dove represents the Spirit. It is flying above an empty throne representing God, in the throne are a chlamys (cloak) and diadem representing the Son.  The Chi-Rho monogram, XP, apparently first used by Constantine I, consists of the first two characters of the name 'Christos' in Greek.

A general assumption that early Christianity was generally aniconic, opposed to religious imagery in both theory and practice until about 200, has been challenged by Paul Corby Finney's analysis of early Christian writing and material remains (1994).  This distinguishes three different sources of attitudes affecting early Christians on the issue: "first that humans could have a direct vision of God; second that they could not; and, third, that although humans could see God they were best advised not to look, and were strictly forbidden to represent what they had seen".  These derived respectively from Greek and Near Eastern pagan religions, from Ancient Greek philosophy, and from the Jewish tradition and the Old Testament. Of the three, Finney concludes that "overall, Israel's aversion to sacred images influenced early Christianity considerably less than the Greek philosophical tradition of invisible deity apophatically defined", so placing less emphasis on the Jewish background of most of the first Christians than most traditional accounts.[10]  Finney suggests that "the reasons for the non-appearance of Christian art before 200 have nothing to do with principled aversion to art, with other-worldliness, or with anti-materialism. The truth is simple and mundane: Christians lacked land and capital. Art requires both. As soon as they began to acquire land and capital, Christians began to experiment with their own distinctive forms of art".[11]

In the Dura-Europos church, of about 230â€“256, which is in the best condition of the surviving very early churches, there are frescos of biblical scenes including a figure of Jesus, as well as Christ as the Good Shepherd.  The building was a normal house apparently converted to use as a church.[12][13] The earliest Christian paintings in the Catacombs of Rome are from a few decades before, and these represent the largest body of examples of Christian art from the pre-Constantinian period, with hundreds of examples decorating tombs or family tomb-chambers. Many are simple symbols, but there are numerous figure paintings either showing orants or female praying figures, usually representing the deceased person, or figures or shorthand scenes from the bible or Christian history.

The style of the catacomb paintings, and the entirety of many decorative elements, are effectively identical to those of the catacombs of other religious groups, whether conventional pagans following Ancient Roman religion, or Jews or followers of the Roman mystery religions.  The quality of the painting is low compared to the large houses of the rich, which provide the other main corpus of painting surviving from the period, but the shorthand depiction of figures can have an expressive charm.[14][15][16] A similar situation applies at Dura-Europos, where the decoration of the church is comparable in style and quality to that of the (larger and more lavishly painted) Dura-Europos synagogue and the Temple of Bel. At least in such smaller places, it seems that the available artists were used by all religious groups. It may also have been the case that the painted chambers in the cattacombs were decorated in similar style to the best rooms of the homes of the better-off families buried in them,  with Christian scenes and symbols replacing those from mythology, literature, paganism and eroticism, although we lack the evidence to confirm this.[17][18][19]  We do have the same scenes on small pieces in media such as pottery or glass,[20] though less often from this pre-Constantinian period.

There was a preference for what are sometimes called "abbreviated" representations, small groups of say one to four figures forming a single motif which could be easily recognised as representing a particular incident. These vignettes fitted the Roman style of room decoration, set in compartments in a scheme with a geometrical structure (see gallery below).[21]  Biblical scenes of figures rescued from mortal danger were very popular; these represented both the Resurrection of Jesus, through typology, and the salvation of the soul of the deceased. Jonah and the whale,[22][23] the Sacrifice of Isaac, Noah praying in the Ark (represented as an orant in a large box, perhaps with a dove carrying a branch), Moses striking the rock, Daniel in the lion's den and the Three Youths in the Fiery Furnace ([Daniel 3:10â€“30]) were all favourites, that could be easily depicted.[24][25][21][26][27]

Early Christian sarcophagi were a much more expensive option, made of marble and often heavily decorated with scenes in very high relief, worked with drills. Free-standing statues that are unmistakably Christian are very rare, and never very large, as more common subjects such as the Good Shepherd were symbols appealing to several religious and philosophical groups, including Christians, and without context no affiliation can be given to them.  Typically sculptures, where they appear, are of rather high quality. One exceptional group that seems clearly Christian is known as the Cleveland Statuettes of Jonah and the Whale,[28][21] and consists of a group of small statuettes of about 270, including two busts of a young and fashionably dressed couple, from an unknown find-spot, possibly in modern Turkey.  The other figures tell the story of Jonah in four pieces, with a Good Shepherd; how they were displayed remains mysterious.[29]

The depiction of Jesus was well-developed by the end of the pre-Constantinian period. He was typically shown in narrative scenes, with a preference for New Testament miracles, and few of scenes from his Passion.  A variety of different types of appearance were used, including the thin long-faced figure with long centrally-parted hair that was later to become the norm. But in the earliest images as many show a stocky and short-haired beardless figure in a short tunic, who can only be identified by his context. In many images of miracles Jesus carries a stick or wand, which he points at the subject of the miracle rather like a modern stage magician (though the wand is a good deal larger).

Saints are fairly often seen, with Peter and Paul, both martyred in Rome, by some way the most common in the catacombs there. Both already have their distinctive appearances, retained throughout the history of Christian art. Other saints may not be identifiable unless labelled with an inscription.  In the same way some images may represent either the Last Supper or a contemporary agape feast.

The Three Youths in the Fiery Furnace ([Daniel 3:10â€“30]), catacomb of Priscilla[30]

Moses striking the rock in the desert, a prototype of baptism[31]

3rd-century cover for catacomb burial, engraved with the Adoration of the Magi (cast shown)

Catacomb chamber with (from top): Orants, Jonah and the Whale, Moses striking the rock (left), Noah praying in the ark, Adoration of the Magi. 200â€“250

In the 4th century, the rapidly growing Christian population, now supported by the state, needed to build larger and grander public buildings for worship than the mostly discreet meeting places they had been using, which were typically in or among domestic buildings. Pagan temples remained in use for their original purposes for some time and, at least in Rome, even when deserted were shunned by Christians until the 6th or 7th centuries, when some were converted to churches.[32] Elsewhere this happened sooner.  Architectural formulas for temples were unsuitable, not simply for their pagan associations, but because pagan cult and sacrifices occurred outdoors under the open sky in the sight of the gods, with the temple, housing the cult figures and the treasury, as a windowless backdrop.

The usable model at hand, when Emperor Constantine I wanted to memorialize his imperial piety, was the familiar conventional architecture of the basilica.  There were several variations of the basic plan of the secular basilica, always some kind of rectangular hall, but the one usually followed for churches had a center nave with one aisle at each side, and an apse at one end opposite to the main door at the other. In, and often also in front of, the apse was a raised platform, where the altar was placed and the clergy officiated.  In secular buildings this plan was more typically used for the smaller audience halls of the emperors, governors, and the very rich than for the great public basilicas functioning as law courts and other public purposes.[33] This was the normal pattern used for Roman churches, and generally in the Western Empire, but the Eastern Empire, and Roman Africa, were more adventurous, and their models were sometimes copied in the West, for example in Milan.  All variations allowed natural light from windows high in the walls, a departure from the windowless sanctuaries of the temples of most previous religions, and this has remained a consistent feature of Christian church architecture. Formulas giving churches with a large central area were to become preferred in Byzantine architecture, which developed styles of basilica with a dome early on.[34]

A particular and short-lived type of building, using the same basilican form, was the funerary hall, which was not a normal church, though the surviving examples long ago became regular churches, and they always offered funeral and memorial services, but a building erected in the Constantinian period as an indoor cemetery on a site connected with early Christian martyrs, such as a catacomb.  The six examples built by Constantine outside the walls of Rome are: Old Saint Peter's Basilica, the older basilica dedicated to Saint Agnes of which Santa Costanza is now the only remaining element, San Sebastiano fuori le mura, San Lorenzo fuori le Mura, Santi Marcellino e Pietro al Laterano, and one in the modern park of Villa Gordiani.[35]

A martyrium was a building erected on a spot with particular significance, often over the burial of a martyr. No particular architectural form was associated with the type, and they were often small. Many became churches, or chapels in larger churches erected adjoining them.  With baptistries and mausolea, their often smaller size and different function made martyria suitable for architectural experimentation.[36]

Among the key buildings, not all surviving in their original form, are:

With the final legalization of Christianity, the existing styles of Christian art continued to develop, and take on a more monumental and iconic character.  Before long very large Christian churches began to be constructed, and the majority of the rich elite adapted Christianity, and public and elite Christian art became grander to suit the new spaces and clients.

Although borrowings of motifs such as the Virgin and Child from pagan religious art had been pointed out as far back as the Protestant Reformation, when John Calvin and his followers gleefully used them as a stick with which to beat all Christian art, the belief of André Grabar, Andreas Alföldi, Ernst Kantorowicz and other early 20th-century art historians that Roman Imperial imagery was a much more significant influence "has become universally accepted".  A book by Thomas F. Mathews in 1994 attempted to overturn this thesis, very largely denying influence from Imperial iconography in favour of a range of other secular and religious influence, but was roughly handled by academic reviewers.[38]

With more space, narrative images containing many people develop in churches, and also begin to be seen in later catacomb paintings. Continuous rows of biblical scenes appear (rather high up) along the side walls of churches. The best-preserved 5th-century examples are the set of Old Testament scenes along the nave walls of  Santa Maria Maggiore in Rome.  These can be compared to the paintings of Dura-Europos, and probably also derive from a lost tradition of both Jewish and Christian illustrated manuscripts, as well as more general Roman precedents.[39][40] The large apses contain images in an iconic style, which gradually developed to centre on a large figure, or later just the bust, of Christ, or later of the Virgin Mary. The earliest apses show a range of compositions that are new symbolic images of the Christian life and the Church.

No panel paintings, or "icons" from before the 6th century have survived in anything like an original condition, but they were clearly produced, and becoming more important throughout this period.

Sculpture, all much smaller than lifesize, has survived in better quantities.  The most famous of a considerable number of surviving early Christian sarcophagi are perhaps the Sarcophagus of Junius Bassus and Dogmatic sarcophagus of the 4th century.  A number of ivory carvings have survived, including the complex late-5th-century Brescia Casket, probably a product of Saint Ambrose's episcopate in Milan, then the seat of the Imperial court, and the 6th-century Throne of Maximian from the Byzantine Italian capital of Ravenna.

Gold sandwich glass or gold glass was a technique for fixing a layer of gold leaf with a design between two fused layers of glass, developed in Hellenistic glass and revived in the 3rd century.  There are a very fewer larger designs, but the great majority of the around 500 survivals are roundels that are the cut-off bottoms of wine cups or glasses used to mark and decorate graves in the Catacombs of Rome by pressing them into the mortar. The great majority are 4th century, extending into the 5th century. Most are Christian, but many pagan and a few Jewish, and had probably originally been given as gifts on marriage, or festive occasions such as New Year.  Their iconography has been much studied, although artistically they are relatively unsophisticated.[41] Their subjects are similar to the catacomb paintings, but with a difference balance including more portraiture of the deceased (usually, it is presumed).  The progression to an increased number of images of saints can be seen in them.[42]  The same technique began to be used for gold tesserae for mosaics in the mid-1st century in Rome, and by the 5th century these had become the standard background for religious mosaics.


town on the border between county tyrone and county donegal

Tyrone is connected by land to the county of Fermanagh to the southwest; Monaghan to the south; Armagh to the southeast; Londonderry to the north; and Donegal to the west. Across Lough Neagh to the east, it borders County Antrim. It is the eighth largest of Ireland's thirty-two counties by area and tenth largest by population.[14] It is the second largest of Ulster's nine traditional counties by area and fourth largest by population.[15]

County Tyrone

County Tyrone (from Irish: TÃr Eoghain, meaning "land of Eoghan") is one of the six historic counties of Northern Ireland. It is also one of the 32 traditional counties of Ireland and lies within the historic province of Ulster. It is no longer used as an administrative division for local government but retains a strong identity in popular culture.

Adjoined to the south-west shore of Lough Neagh, the county covers an area of 3,155 km2 (1,218 sq mi) and has a population of about 177,986; its county town is Omagh. The county derives its name and general geographic location from Tyrone, a Gaelic kingdom under the O'Neill dynasty which existed until the 17th century.

The name Tyrone is derived from Irish Tír Eoghain, meaning 'land of Eoghan', the name given to the conquests made by the Cenél nEógain from the provinces of Airgíalla and Ulaid.[5] Historically, it was anglicised as Tirowen or Tyrowen, which are closer to the Irish pronunciation.

Historically Tyrone stretched as far north as Lough Foyle, and comprised part of modern-day County Londonderry east of the River Foyle. The majority of County Londonderry was carved out of Tyrone between 1610–1620 when that land went to the Guilds of London to set up profit making schemes based on natural resources located there. Tyrone was the traditional stronghold of the various O'Neill clans and families, the strongest of the Gaelic Irish families in Ulster, surviving into the seventeenth century. The ancient principality of Tír Eoghain, the inheritance of the O'Neills, included the whole of the present counties of Tyrone and Londonderry, and the four baronies of West Inishowen, East Inishowen, Raphoe North and Raphoe South in County Donegal.[12]

In 1608 during O'Doherty's Rebellion areas of the country were plundered and burnt by the forces of Sir Cahir O'Doherty following his destruction of Derry. However, O'Doherty's men avoided the estates of the recently fled Earl of Tyrone around Dungannon, fearing Tyrone's anger if he returned from his exile.[13]

With an area of 3,155 square kilometres (1,218 sq mi), Tyrone is the largest county in Northern Ireland. The flat peatlands of East Tyrone border the shoreline of the largest lake in the British Isles, Lough Neagh, rising gradually across to the more mountainous terrain in the west of the county, the area surrounding the Sperrin Mountains, the highest point being Sawel Mountain at a height of 678 m (2,224 ft). The length of the county, from the mouth of the River Blackwater at Lough Neagh to the western point near Carrickaduff hill is 55 miles (89 km). The breadth, from the southern corner, southeast of Fivemiletown, to the northeastern corner near Meenard Mountain is 37.5 miles (60.4 km); giving an area of 1,260 square miles (in 1900).[12] Annaghone lays claim to be the geographical centre of Northern Ireland.

It is one of four counties in Northern Ireland which currently has a majority of the population from a Catholic community background, according to the 2011 census. In 1900 County Tyrone had a population of 197,719,[12] while in 2011 it was 177,986.

(population of 18,000 or more and under 75,000 at 2001 Census)[16]

(population of 10,000 or more and under 18,000 at 2001 Census)[16]

(population of 4,500 or more and under 10,000 at 2001 Census)[16]

(population of 2,250 or more and under 4,500 at 2001 Census)[16]

(population of 1,000 or more and under 2,250 at 2001 Census)[16]

(population of less than 1,000 at 2001 Census)[16]

There is the possibility of the line being reopened to Dungannon railway station from Portadown.[17]

The major sports in Tyrone are Gaelic games, association football and rugby union.[citation needed]

George Loyd (1843 â€“ December 17, 1892), whose last name was occasionally spelled "Lloyd," was a United States Army soldier. He fought in the Battle of the Little Big Horn and in the Battle of Wounded Knee, now called the Wounded Knee Massacre, receiving the Medal of Honor for his actions in the latter.


who plays richard castle in the tv series castle

Created by Andrew W. Marlowe, it primarily traces the lives of Richard Castle (Nathan Fillion), a best-selling mystery novelist, and Kate Beckett (Stana Katic), a homicide detective, as they solve various unusual crimes in New York City. Detective Beckett is initially infuriated at the thought of working with a writer and goes to great lengths to keep him out of her way. However, the two soon start developing feelings for each other. The overarching plot of the series focused on the romance between the two lead characters and their ongoing investigation of the murder of Beckett's mother.

Castle (TV series)

Castle is an American crime-comedy-drama television series,[1] which aired on ABC for a total of eight seasons from March 9, 2009 to May 16, 2016. The series was produced jointly by Beacon Pictures and ABC Studios.

On May 12, 2016, it was announced that despite some cast members signing one-year contracts for a potential ninth season, the show was canceled.

Richard Castle (Fillion) is a famous mystery novelist. Bored and suffering from writer's block, he kills off the main character in his successful book series. He is brought in by the New York Police Department for questioning regarding a copy-cat murder based on one of his novels. He is intrigued by Kate Beckett (Katic), the detective assigned to the case. Castle decides to use Beckett as his muse for Nikki Heat, the main character of his next book series and uses his friendship with the mayor to force the police to let him shadow Beckett. Castle's exuberant man child personality clashes with Beckett's more reserved and professional demeanor, but the two eventually become friends and then lovers. Their cases often deal with murders occurring within various unusual subcultures or milieus, including reality TV shows, vampire enthusiasts, a science fiction convention, and a man who claims to be a time traveler. A recurring plot line deals with the unsolved murder of Beckett's mother years before, an investigation which leads to an increasingly sprawling, and dangerous, conspiracy.

Real-life writers Stephen J. Cannell, James Patterson, Dennis Lehane, and Michael Connelly appear as themselves during periodic games of poker at Castle's apartment. Typically, they discuss Castle and Beckett's current case and tease Castle about his involvement with Beckett. Following Cannell's death on September 30, 2010, an empty chair was kept at the poker table for a year in his honor.

Castle premiered as a midseason replacement on ABC on March 9, 2009. ABC renewed Castle for a second season with an initial order of 13 episodes (later extended to 24 episodes).[2][3] The second season premiered on Monday, September 21, 2009.[4] In March 2010, ABC renewed Castle for a third, 22-episode season, which began on September 20, 2010.[5] On November 11, 2010, ABC extended the episode order to 24.[6] On January 10, 2011, ABC announced Castle had been renewed for a fourth season for 22 episodes.[7] Season four premiered on September 19, 2011.[8] On December 8, 2011, ABC ordered an additional episode bringing season 4 up to 23 episodes.[9] On May 10, 2012, Castle was renewed for a fifth season by ABC,[10] which started on Monday September 24, 2012.[11] Two additional episodes were ordered on October 19, 2012, and February 5, 2013, respectively, which brought season 5 up to a total of 24 episodes.[12][13][14] On May 10, 2013, ABC announced via Twitter that Castle had been renewed for a sixth season.[15] On May 8, 2014, ABC renewed the series for a seventh season,[16] which premiered on September 29, 2014.[17] On May 7, 2015, the series was renewed for its eighth season,[18] which premiered on September 21, 2015.[19] On April 18, 2016, ABC and ABC Productions announced that Stana Katic and Tamala Jones would not return for Castle's ninth season, should it be renewed.[20] Despite several other cast members having signed on for a ninth season, on May 12, 2016, it was announced that the show would be cancelled instead; the final episode aired on May 16, 2016.[21]

In June 2011, TNT acquired exclusive cable rights from Disney-ABC Domestic Television to air the first two seasons of Castle beginning in the summer of 2012.[86] In advance of the series' fourth season, TNT broadcast an eight-hour marathon of episodes on September 15, 2011, including five from season 3.[87] Castle began airing on TNT every Wednesday beginning September 26, 2012.[88] Castle also began airing in broadcast syndication on weekends beginning September 29, 2012.[89]

In the series, Castle writes a novel titled Heat Wave. As a tie-in, ABC and sister publisher Hyperion Books released that novel as a real book with "Richard Castle" as the author. It is entirely in character from the dedication to the acknowledgments, although the latter mentions the principal cast and the show's creators by first name.[90] ABC released the first half of the novel in weekly increments on their website.[91] The complete novel was published in September 2009 as a hardcover, debuting at No. 26 on The New York Times Best Seller list.[92] In its fourth week on the list, Heat Wave broke into the top 10 at No. 6.[93] Heat Wave was released in paperback on July 27, 2010 and debuted at No. 34 on The New York Times Best Seller Paperback Mass-Market list.[94] It once again appeared on The New York Times Best Seller list on May 27, 2012 at No. 19.[95]

Naked Heat, the sequel to Heat Wave, was released on September 28, 2010.[96] Naked Heat debuted at No. 7 on The New York Times Best Seller list.[97] As they did with Heat Wave, ABC released a series of the early chapters online as a promotional tool.[98] A third novel, titled Heat Rises, was released on September 20, 2011.[99] It debuted at No. 1 on The New York Times Best Seller list on October 9, 2011[100][101] and at No. 5 on the USA TODAY Best-Selling Books list.[102]

The season three finale introduced a graphic novel based on Castle's previous novel character, Derrick Storm. Castle: Richard Castle's Deadly Storm was published by Marvel Comics on September 28, 2011.[103] It debuted at No. 3 on The New York Times Best Seller list on October 16, 2011.[104] This has been followed by three more graphic novels, published a year apart.

A fourth novel, titled Frozen Heat, was released on September 11, 2012,[105] and debuted on The New York Times Best Seller list at No. 7 on September 23, 2012.[106] The fifth Nikki Heat novel Deadly Heat was released September 17, 2013 and debuted at No. 8 on The New York Times Best Seller list.[107] Raging Heat, the sixth novel, was released on September 16, 2014. It landed on No. 6 on The New York Times Hardcover Fiction Best Seller list[108] and on No. 17 on New York Times Combined Print and E-Book Fiction bestseller list[109] on October 5, 2014. The seventh novel, Driving Heat,[110] was released on September 15, 2015.[111] It debuted on The New York Times Hardcover Fiction Best Seller list at No. 13[112] on October 4, 2015.

On May 20, 2016, it was announced that two more novels would be published in the Nikki Heat series, even though the show itself had been canceled. The eighth book in the series, High Heat, was published on October 25, 2016. The ninth, Heat Storm, was released in May 2017.[113]

In February 2012, Hyperion announced three e-book novellas as part of Richard Castle's famous Derrick Storm series. The first novella of the series, A Brewing Storm, was released in digital media on May 1, 2012. It debuted at No. 13 on The New York Times E-Book Fiction Best Seller list,[114] as well as No. 18 on The New York Times Combine Prints & E-book Fiction list[115] on May 20, 2012. On July 3, 2012, the second novella of the new Derrick Storm books, A Raging Storm, was released in e-book format. It landed on The New York Times Best Seller e-books list at #19[116] and at No. 31 for the combined Prints & E-book list, both on July 22, 2012.[117] The final Derrick Storm novella, A Bloody Storm, was released on August 7, 2012. It debuted on The New York Times Best Seller e-books list at #20[118] and at #34[119] on the combined Prints & E-book list on August 26, 2012.

Castle: Never Judge a Book by its Cover was released on July 9, 2013.[120] The game is available on Steam and can be downloaded on most mobile devices.[121] Players work with Castle and Beckett to find clues and stop a serial killer.[121]

On August 20, 2014, ABC announced that the early development stage has begun on a television series centered on Derrick Storm. The series will be a CIA procedural written by Gregory Poirier, who will executive-produce with Castle's Andrew Marlowe and Terri Miller.[122]


did they use real whales in free willy 2

Free Willy 2: The Adventure Home is a 1995 American family film, directed by Dwight Little, and released by Warner Bros. under its Family Entertainment banner. It is a sequel to the 1993 film Free Willy, also starring Jason James Richter and August Schellenberg. Free Willy 3: The Rescue, was subsequently released in 1997, making a trilogy. A fourth nonconsecutive film, Free Willy: Escape from Pirate's Cove was released on DVD in Spring 2010. Keiko the Orca does not actually appear in this film unlike the original movie. Willy is played by a robotic double while the Free Willy Keiko Foundation devised a plan to bring him to the Oregon Coast Aquarium where he would be rehabilitated for poor health.

Free Willy 2: The Adventure Home

It's been two years since Jesse saved and freed his orca friend, Willy. Jesse, now a teenager, has since been adopted by his foster parents, Glen and Annie Greenwood. Jesse and his adoptive parents are preparing to go on a family camping trip to the Pacific Northwest. Glen has been trying to teach Jesse to drive their motorboat, but Jesse is more interested in girls. Before they leave town, however, Dwight, Jesse's former social worker, shows up to inform them that they have found Jesse's biological mother, who abandoned him 8 years ago. Jesse's mother has died and left behind another son, Jesse's 8-year old half-brother named Elvis (Francis Capra). Elvis is morose, overly talkative, and mischievous, and he is also prone to telling lies and easily gets on Jesse's nerves. He is invited on their trip to San Juan Island so that he and Jesse might get to know each other.

At the environmental institute, Jesse reunites with his old Native American friend Randolph Johnson (August Schellenberg) whom Jesse met at the aquatic park when he met Willy. Jesse quickly becomes smitten with Randolph's attractive and kindly goddaughter, Nadine (Mary Kate Schellhardt). Jesse also tracks down and reunites with Willy. Jesse cautiously begins to show his interest in Nadine, and as the awkward teenagers grow closer, Jesse helps Nadine befriend Willy and his orca siblings, Luna and Little Spot. Elvis spies on the two, but at the same time, forms a bond with Willy's brother Little Spot.

As they continue to enjoy their camping trip, an oil tanker runs aground and spills oil into the ocean, trapping the three young killer whales in a small cove. When word gets out that the orcas are trapped and Luna is dying from the oil in her lungs, John Milner, the CEO of some oil company (Jon Tenney), arrives and announces a plan to move the orcas into captivity where they can recover from their injuries. His real plan, however, is to sell the orcas to marine mammal parks.

Randolph eventually uses an old Indian remedy that he administers to Luna, who recovers. Elvis and Jesse learn of Milner's real plan to lock up the whales, and they confront him, ruining his plans. Then, with Nadine, they get the orcas away from the cove by stealing the boat belonging to Glen and leading them out of the cove to safety. However, the tanker explodes, and the crude oil in the water catches fire. While the three whales swim under the flaming oil safely, the boat hits a rock and starts to sink. Elvis begins to panic and Jesse promises to not let anything happen to him. Nadine and Elvis are lifted into a rescue helicopter summoned by Randolph's distress signals, but Jesse ends up slipping and falls back into the ocean. The helicopter is unable to go back for him due to the heavy smoke and is forced to fly away. However, Jesse is rescued by Willy, who takes him under the flames, and delivers him to Glen, Annie and Randolph. Jesse, after taking a moment to say goodbye, sends Willy off back to his family.

Shortly after, the Coast Guard brings Nadine and Elvis to Randolph's boat. Elvis gives Jesse an old picture of him and their mother, and explains that he once ripped it up out of anger, but taped it back together for him. Elvis tells Jesse that their mother always talked about him and that she felt bad about abandoning him. Jesse thanks him for the picture and hugs him, finally able to put his past at rest. Glen and Annie decide to adopt Elvis so the brothers can stay together.

Free Willy 2: The Adventure Home received mostly mixed to negative reviews, and currently holds a score of 36% on Rotten Tomatoes, based on 14 reviews.[3][4][5][6]