Prelude.

On 10 May 1940, Winston Churchill became Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. By 26 May, the BEF and the French 1st Army were bottled up in a corridor to the sea, about deep and wide. Most of the British forces were still around Lille, over from Dunkirk, with the French farther south. Two massive German armies flanked them. General Fedor von Bock's Army Group B was to the east, and General Gerd von Rundstedt's Army Group A to the west. Both officers were later promoted to field marshal.

Halt order.

On 24 May, Hitler visited General von Rundstedt's headquarters at Charleville. The terrain around Dunkirk was thought unsuitable for armour. Von Rundstedt advised him the infantry should attack the British forces at Arras, where the British had proved capable of significant action, while Kleist's armour held the line west and south of Dunkirk to pounce on the Allied forces retreating before Army Group B. Hitler, who was familiar with Flanders' marshes from the First World War, agreed. This order allowed the Germans to consolidate their gains and prepare for a southward advance against the remaining French forces.  "Luftwaffe" commander Hermann Göring asked for the chance to destroy the forces in Dunkirk. The Allied forces' destruction was thus initially assigned to the air force while the German infantry organised in Army Group B. Von Rundstedt later called this "one of the great turning points of the war."  The true reason for the decision to halt the German armour on 24 May is still debated. One theory is that Von Rundstedt and Hitler agreed to conserve the armour for "Fall Rot" ("Case Red"), an operation to the south. It is possible that the Luftwaffe's closer ties than the army's to the Nazi Party contributed to Hitler's approval of Göring's request. Another theory—which few historians have given credence—is that Hitler was still trying to establish diplomatic peace with Britain before Operation Barbarossa (the invasion of the Soviet Union). Although von Rundstedt after the war stated his suspicions that Hitler wanted "to help the British", based on alleged praise of the British Empire during a visit to his headquarters, little evidence that Hitler wanted to let the Allies escape exists apart from a self-exculpatory statement by Hitler himself in 1945. The historian Brian Bond wrote:  Few historians now accept the view that Hitler's behaviour was influenced by the desire to let the British off lightly in [the] hope that they would then accept a compromise peace. True, in his political testament dated 26 February 1945 Hitler lamented that Churchill was "quite unable to appreciate the sporting spirit" in which he had refrained from annihilating [the] British Expeditionary Force, at Dunkirk, but this hardly squares with the contemporary record. Directive No. 13, issued by the Supreme Headquarters on 24 May called specifically for the annihilation of the French, English and Belgian forces in the pocket, while the "Luftwaffe" was ordered to prevent the escape of the English forces across the channel.  Whatever the reasons for Hitler's decision, the Germans confidently believed the Allied troops were doomed. American journalist William Shirer reported on 25 May, "German military circles here tonight put it flatly. They said the fate of the great Allied army bottled up in Flanders is sealed." BEF commander Lord Gort agreed, writing to Anthony Eden, "I must not conceal from you that a great part of the BEF and its equipment will inevitably be lost in the best of circumstances".  Hitler did not rescind the Halt Order until the evening of 26 May. The three days thus gained gave a vital breathing space to the Royal Navy to arrange the evacuation of the British and Allied troops. About 338,000 men were rescued in about 11 days. Of these some 215,000 were British and 123,000 were French, of whom 102,250 escaped in British ships.

Battle.

"Fight back to the west".

On 26 May, Anthony Eden told General Lord Gort, Commander-in-Chief (C-in-C) of the BEF, that he might need to "fight back to the west", and ordered him to prepare plans for the evacuation, but without telling the French or the Belgians. Gort had foreseen the order and preliminary plans were already in hand. The first such plan, for a defence along the Lys Canal, could not be carried out because of German advances on 26 May, with the 2nd and 50th Divisions pinned down, and the 1st, 5th and 48th Divisions under heavy attack. The 2nd Division took heavy casualties trying to keep a corridor open, being reduced to brigade strength, but they succeeded; the 1st, 3rd, 4th and 42nd Divisions escaped along the corridor that day, as did about one-third of the French First Army. As the Allies fell back, they disabled their artillery and vehicles and destroyed their stores.  On 27 May, the British fought back to the Dunkirk perimeter line. The Le Paradis massacre took place that day, when the 3rd SS Division "Totenkopf" machine-gunned 97 British and French prisoners near the La Bassée Canal. The British prisoners were from the 2nd Battalion, Royal Norfolk Regiment, part of the 4th Brigade of the 2nd Division. The SS men lined them up against the wall of a barn and shot them all; only two survived. Meanwhile, the Luftwaffe dropped bombs and leaflets on the Allied armies. The leaflets showed a map of the situation. They read, in English and French: "British soldiers! Look at the map: it gives your true situation! Your troops are entirely surrounded – stop fighting! Put down your arms!" To the land- and air-minded Germans, the sea seemed an impassable barrier, so they believed the Allies were surrounded; but the British saw the sea as a route to safety.  Besides the "Luftwaffe"s bombs, German heavy artillery (which had just come within range) also fired high-explosive shells into Dunkirk. By this time, over 1,000 civilians in the town had been killed. This bombardment continued until the evacuation was over.

Battle of Wytschaete.

Gort had sent Lieutenant General Ronald Adam, commanding III Corps, ahead to build the defensive perimeter around Dunkirk. Lieutenant General Alan Brooke, commanding II Corps, was to conduct a holding action with the 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 50th Divisions along the Ypres-Comines canal as far as Yser, while the rest of the BEF fell back. The battle of Wytschaete, over the border in Belgium, was the toughest action Brooke faced in this role.  On 26 May, the Germans made a reconnaissance in force against the British position. At mid-day on 27 May, they launched a full-scale attack with three divisions south of Ypres. A confused battle followed, where visibility was low because of forested or urban terrain and communications were poor because the British at that time used no radios below battalion level and the telephone wires had been cut. The Germans used infiltration tactics to get among the British, who were beaten back.  The heaviest fighting was in the 5th Division's sector. Still on 27 May, Brooke ordered the 3rd Division commander, Major-General Bernard Montgomery, to extend his division's line to the left, thereby freeing the 10th and 11th Brigades, both of the 4th Division, to join the 5th Division at Messines Ridge. The 10th Brigade arrived first, to find the enemy had advanced so far they were closing on the British field artillery. Between them, the 10th and 11th Brigades cleared the ridge of Germans, and by 28 May they were securely dug in east of Wytschaete.  That day, Brooke ordered a counterattack. This was to be spearheaded by two battalions, the 3rd Grenadier Guards and 2nd North Staffordshire Regiment, both of Major-General Harold Alexander's 1st Division. The North Staffords advanced as far as the Kortekeer River, while the Grenadiers reached the canal itself, but could not hold it. The counterattack disrupted the Germans, holding them back a little longer while the BEF retreated.

Action at Poperinge.

The route back from Brooke's position to Dunkirk passed through the town of Poperinge (known to most British sources as "Poperinghe"), where there was a bottleneck at a bridge over the Yser canal. Most of the main roads in the area converged on that bridge. On 27 May, the "Luftwaffe" bombed the resulting traffic jam thoroughly for two hours, destroying or immobilising about 80 percent of the vehicles. Another "Luftwaffe" raid, on the night of 28–29 May, was illuminated by flares as well as the light from burning vehicles. The British 44th Division in particular had to abandon many guns and lorries, losing almost all of them between Poperinge and the Mont.  The German 6. "Panzerdivision" could probably have destroyed the 44th Division at Poperinge on 29 May, thereby cutting off the 3rd and 50th Divisions as well. The historian and author Julian Thompson calls it "astonishing" that they did not, but they were distracted, investing the nearby town of Cassel.

Belgian surrender.

Gort had ordered Lieutenant General Adam, commanding III Corps, and French General Fagalde to prepare a perimeter defence of Dunkirk. The perimeter was semicircular, with French troops manning the western sector and British troops the eastern. It ran along the Belgian coastline from Nieuwpoort in the east via Veurne, Bulskamp and Bergues to Gravelines in the west. The line was made as strong as possible under the circumstances. On 28 May the Belgian army fighting on the Lys river under the command of King Leopold III surrendered. This left a gap in Gort's eastern flank between the British and the sea. The British were surprised by the Belgian capitulation, despite King Leopold warning them in advance. As a constitutional monarch, Leopold's decision to surrender without consulting the Belgian government led to his condemnation by the Belgian and French Prime Ministers, Hubert Pierlot and Paul Reynaud. Gort sent the battle-worn 3rd, 4th and 50th Divisions into the line to fill the space the Belgians had held.

Defence of the perimeter.

While they were still moving into position, they ran headlong into the German 256th Division, who were trying to outflank Gort. Armoured cars of the 12th Lancers stopped the Germans at Nieuport itself. A confused battle raged all along the perimeter throughout 28 May. Command and control on the British side disintegrated, and the perimeter was driven slowly inwards toward Dunkirk.  Meanwhile, Erwin Rommel had surrounded five divisions of the French First Army near Lille. Although completely cut off and heavily outnumbered, the French fought on for four days under General Molinié in the Siege of Lille (1940), thereby keeping seven German divisions from the assault on Dunkirk and saving an estimated 100,000 Allied troops. In recognition of the garrison's stubborn defence, German general Kurt Waeger granted them the honours of war, saluting the French troops as they marched past in parade formation with rifles shouldered.  The defence of the Dunkirk perimeter held throughout 29–30 May, with the Allies falling back by degrees. On 31 May, the Germans nearly broke through at Nieuport. The situation grew so desperate that two British battalion commanders manned a Bren gun, with one colonel firing and the other loading. A few hours later, the 2nd Battalion, Coldstream Guards of the 3rd Division, rushed to reinforce the line near Furnes, where the British troops had been routed. The Guards restored order by shooting some of the fleeing troops and turning others around at bayonet point. The British troops returned to the line and the German assault was beaten back.  In the afternoon, the Germans breached the perimeter near the canal at Bulskamp, but the boggy ground on the far side of the canal and sporadic fire from the Durham Light Infantry halted them. As night fell, the Germans massed for another attack at Nieuport. Eighteen RAF bombers found the Germans while they were still assembling and scattered them with an accurate bombing run.

Retreat to Dunkirk.

Also on 31 May, General Von Kuechler assumed command of all the German forces at Dunkirk. His plan was simple: launch an all-out attack across the whole front at 11:00 on 1 June. Strangely, Von Kuechler ignored a radio intercept telling him the British were abandoning the eastern end of the line to fall back to Dunkirk itself. During the night of 31 May/1 June 1940, Marcus Ervine-Andrews won the Victoria Cross in the battle when he defended 1,000 yards (910 m) of territory.  The morning of 1 June was clear—good flying weather, in contrast to the bad weather that had hindered air operations on 30 and 31 May (there were only two-and-a-half good flying days in the whole operation.) Although Churchill had promised the French that the British would cover their escape, on the ground it was the French who held the line whilst the last remaining British soldiers were evacuated. Enduring concentrated German artillery fire and "Luftwaffe" strafing and bombs, the French stood their ground. On 2 June (the day the last of the British units embarked onto the ships), the French began to fall back slowly, and by 3 June the Germans were about from Dunkirk. The night of 3 June was the last night of evacuations. At 10:20 on 4 June, the Germans hoisted the swastika over the docks from which so many British and French troops had escaped.  The desperate resistance of Allied forces, especially the French 12th Motorised Infantry Division from the Fort des Dunes, had bought time for the evacuation of the bulk of the troops. The Wehrmacht captured some 35,000 soldiers, almost all of them French. These men had protected the evacuation until the last moment and were unable to embark. The same fate was reserved for the survivors of the French 12th Motorised Infantry Division (composed in particular of the French 150th Infantry Regiment); they were taken prisoner on the morning of 4 June on the beach of Malo-les-Bains. The flag of this regiment was burnt so as not to fall into enemy hands.

Evacuation.

The War Office made the decision to evacuate British forces on 25 May. In the nine days from 27 May to 4 June, 338,226 men escaped, including 139,997 French, Polish, and Belgian troops, together with a small number of Dutch soldiers, aboard 861 vessels (of which 243 were sunk during the operation). B. H. Liddell Hart wrote that Fighter Command lost 106 aircraft over Dunkirk and the "Luftwaffe" lost about 135, some of which were shot down by the French Navy and the Royal Navy. MacDonald wrote in 1986 that the British losses were 177 aircraft and German losses 240.  The docks at Dunkirk were too badly damaged to be used, but the east and west moles (sea walls protecting the harbour entrance) were intact. Captain William Tennant—in charge of the evacuation—decided to use the beaches and the east mole to land the ships. This highly successful idea hugely increased the number of troops that could be embarked each day, and on 31 May, over 68,000 men were embarked.  The last of the British Army left on 3 June, and at 10:50, Tennant signalled Ramsay to say "Operation completed. Returning to Dover". Churchill insisted on coming back for the French and the Royal Navy returned on 4 June, to rescue as many as possible of the French rearguard. Over 26,000 French soldiers were evacuated on that last day, but between 30,000 and 40,000 more were left behind and captured by the Germans. Around 16,000 French soldiers and 1,000 British soldiers died during the evacuation. 90% of Dunkirk was destroyed during the battle.

Aftermath.

Following the events at Dunkirk, the German forces regrouped before commencing operation "Fall Rot", a renewed assault southward, starting on 5 June. Although the French soldiers who had been evacuated at Dunkirk returned to France a few hours later to stop the German advance and two fresh British divisions had begun moving to France in an attempt to form a Second BEF, the decision was taken on 14 June to withdraw all the remaining British troops, an evacuation called Operation Ariel. By 25 June, almost 192,000 Allied personnel, 144,000 of them British, had been evacuated through various French ports. Although the French Army fought on, German troops entered Paris on 14 June. The French government was forced to negotiate an armistice at Compiègne on 22 June.  The loss of materiel on the beaches was enormous. The British Army left enough equipment behind to fit out about eight to ten divisions. Discarded in France were, among other things, huge supplies of ammunition, 880 field guns, 310 guns of large calibre, some 500 anti-aircraft guns, about 850 anti-tank guns, 11,000 machine guns, nearly 700 tanks, 20,000 motorcycles and 45,000 motor cars and lorries. Army equipment available at home was only just sufficient to equip two divisions. The British Army needed months to re-supply properly, and some planned introductions of new equipment were halted while industrial resources concentrated on making good the losses. Officers told troops falling back from Dunkirk to burn or otherwise disable their trucks (so as not to let them benefit the advancing German forces). The shortage of army vehicles after Dunkirk was so severe that the Royal Army Service Corps (RASC) was reduced to retrieving and refurbishing obsolete buses and coaches from British scrapyards to press them into use as troop transports. Some of these antique workhorses were still in use as late as the North African campaign of 1942.  On 2 June, the Dean of St Paul's, Walter Matthews, was the first to call the evacuation the "Miracle of Dunkirk".  A marble memorial to the battle stands at Dunkirk. The French inscription is translated as: "To the glorious memory of the pilots, mariners, and soldiers of the French and Allied armies who sacrificed themselves in the Battle of Dunkirk, May–June 1940."  The missing dead of the BEF are commemorated on the Dunkirk Memorial.

"Dunkirk Spirit".

British press later exploited the successful evacuation of Dunkirk in 1940, and particularly the role of the "Dunkirk little ships", very effectively. Many of them were private vessels such as fishing boats and pleasure cruisers, but commercial vessels such as ferries also contributed to the force, including a number from as far away as the Isle of Man and Glasgow. These smaller vessels—guided by naval craft across the Channel from the Thames Estuary and from Dover—assisted in the official evacuation. Being able to move closer into the beachfront shallows than larger craft, the "little ships" acted as shuttles to and from the larger ships, lifting troops who were queuing in the water, many waiting shoulder-deep in water for hours. The term "Dunkirk Spirit" refers to the solidarity of the British people in times of adversity.

Dunkirk Medal.

A commemorative medal was established in 1960 by the French National Association of Veterans of the Fortified Sector of Flanders and Dunkirk on behalf of the town of Dunkirk. The medal was initially awarded only to the French defenders of Dunkirk, but in 1970 the qualification was expanded to include British forces who served in the Dunkirk sector and their rescue forces, including the civilians who volunteered to man the "little ships".  The design of the bronze medal included the arms of the town of Dunkirk on one side, and ""Dunkerque 1940"" on the reverse side.

The Battle of Dunkirk () was fought in Dunkirk (Dunkerque), France, during the Second World War, between the Allies and Nazi Germany. As the Allies were losing the Battle of France on the Western Front, the Battle of Dunkirk was the defence and evacuation to Britain of British and other Allied forces in Europe from 26 May to 4 June 1940.

Bitva u Dunkerque byla bitva druhé světové války mezi Spojenci a Německem na západní frontě během bitvy o Francii a proběhla u Dunkerku mezi 24. květnem a 4. červnem 1940. Během bitvy došlo k evakuaci britských a spojeneckých vojsk z Francie.


Population and geography.

The total population of the West Indies Federation was between 3 and 4 million people, with the majority being of black West African descent. Minorities included Indians from the subcontinent (called East Indians), Europeans, Chinese, and Caribs. There was also a large population of mixed descent (mainly mulattos, but also Afro-Indian, Euro-Indian and mixed-Chinese). In terms of religion, most of the population was Protestant, with significant numbers of Catholics and some Hindus and Muslims (both almost exclusively from the East Indian population).  The West Indies Federation (or just West Indies) consisted of around 24 main inhabited islands and approximately 220–230 minor offshore islands, islets and cays (some inhabited, some uninhabited). The largest island was Jamaica, located in the far northwest of the Federation. To the southeast lay the second largest island, Trinidad, followed by Barbados (in terms of population), located at the eastern extremity of the Federation.  The Federation spanned all the island groupings in the Caribbean:  At its widest (west to east), from the Cayman Islands to Barbados it spanned some (and across approximately 22 degrees of longitude) and from the Turks and Caicos Islands in the north, to the Icacos Point, Trinidad in the south it extended (and across 12 degrees of latitude). However, most of the area along either of these distances was taken up by open water (with the exception of some of the other islands lying in between). By comparison Great Britain stretches across nearly 10 degrees of latitude and Spain extends across almost 20 degrees of longitude. Even though the West Indies was spread across such a vast area, most of its provinces were mostly contiguous and clustered fairly close together in the Eastern Caribbean, with the obvious exceptions of Jamaica, the Cayman Islands, and Turks and Caicos Islands.  Most of the islands have mountainous interiors surrounded by narrow coastal plains. The exceptions were Anguilla, Antigua, Barbuda, the Cayman Islands, the Turks and Caicos Islands (which are all fairly flat), and Trinidad (which has a large mountain range in the north and a small central mountain range in the interior of the otherwise flat island). The narrow coastal plains as well as historical trade is the main reason why almost all of the major settlements (cities and towns) of the Federation were located on the coast. Chief towns included Kingston, Port of Spain, Bridgetown, Spanish Town, Montego Bay, Mandeville, Castries, Roseau, St. George's, Kingstown, St. John's, and Basseterre.  The climate in all the islands is tropical, with hot and humid weather, although inland regions in the larger islands have more temperate climates. Regions falling within the rain shadows (southern coasts of Jamaica and Trinidad and eastern coasts of the Lesser Antilles) are relatively drier. There are two seasons annually: the dry season for the first six months of the year, and the rainy season (also known as the hurricane season) in the second half of the year. Many of the islands fall within the traditional hurricane belt, with the exception of Trinidad (although it occasionally experiences low latitude hurricanes) and thus are at risk from potential wind and flood damage.  Britain classified the Federation as being part of its "Caribbean and North Atlantic Territories" region which was shared alongside other possessions such as Bermuda.  The Federation today is geographically considered to be part of the North American continent as all of its islands are in and around the Caribbean, even though Trinidad is located just offshore from South America and lies on the same continental shelf. "See Bicontinental countries."

Provinces.

Historically "West Indian" nations The Bahamas, Bermuda, Belize, the British Virgin Islands, and Guyana opted not to join because they believed that their future lay with association with North America (for both the Bahamas and Bermuda), Central America, and the United States Virgin Islands. Guyana opted not to join at that time due to its ongoing political and internal struggles for independence from the UK, started in the 1950s. At issue were the newly formed political party with socialist leanings, at the height of the cold war. It had hoped to join the federation once the issues were resolved. The Bahamas did participate in the 1960 West Indies Federation Games, with a future prime minister of the Bahamas, Perry Christie, as an athlete. There was however possible interest by Guyana in a very loose re-attempted Caribbean Federation around 1971.

Government and legal status.

The Federation was an internally self-governing, federal state made up of ten provinces, all British colonial possessions. The federation was created by the United Kingdom in 1958 from most of the British West Indies. Britain intended that the Federation would shortly become a fully independent state, thus simultaneously satisfying the demands for independence from all the colonies in the region. However, the project was doomed by political squabbling among the provinces, and the Federation never achieved full sovereignty.  The legal basis for the federation was the British Caribbean Federation Act 1956, and the date of formation—January 3, 1958—was set by an Order in Council proclaimed in 1957.  As with all British colonies of the period, Queen Elizabeth II was the head of state, and The Crown was vested with the legislative authority for matters concerning executive affairs, defence and the financing of the Federation. Her representative, Patrick Buchan-Hepburn, 1st Baron Hailes, was given the title of Governor-General rather than that of Governor more typical for a British colony. The title may have reflected the federal nature of the state, or indicated the expectations that the Federation would soon become independent. The Governor-General also had the full power by the British Government to veto any laws passed by the Federation.  The Federal Parliament of the West Indies Federation was bicameral, consisting of a nominated Senate and a popularly elected House of Representatives. The Senate consisted of nineteen members. These members were appointed by the Governor General, after consulting the respective territorial governments. Two members represented each unit (with only one from Montserrat). The House of Representatives had 45 total elected members – Jamaica had seventeen seats, Trinidad and Tobago ten seats, Barbados five seats, Montserrat one seat, and the remaining islands two seats each.  However the government (executive) would be a Council of State, not a Cabinet. It would be presided over by the Governor-General and consist of the Prime Minister and ten other officials.

Federal Supreme Court.

There was also a Federal Supreme Court consisting of a Chief Justice and three (later five) other Justices. The Federal Supreme Court itself was the successor to the West Indian Court of Appeal (established in 1919) and had jurisdiction over the same territories (Barbados, British Guiana, the Leeward Islands (including the British Virgin Islands), Trinidad & Tobago and the Windward Islands) in addition to Jamaica and its dependencies. Under the 1956 British Caribbean Federation Act though, the Federal Supreme Court did not have any jurisdiction over British Honduras, as the British Honduras (Court of Appeal) Act, 1881, (which allowed for appeals from the British Honduras Supreme Court to go the Privy Council or the Supreme Court of Jamaica) was repealed under it (although the arrangement for appeals to the Supreme Court of Jamaica had generally ceased in 1911 anyway).  Sir Stanley Eugene Gomes, Chief Justice of Trinidad and Tobago, was appointed Chief Justice of the Federation in August, 1961.

Proposed and "de facto" capital.

Three member states were proposed as hosts for the capital city of the federation: Jamaica, Barbados and Trinidad and Tobago. Earlier in the federal negotiations the general opinion had been that the capital should be one of the smaller islands so that the capital would be in a neutral position to the larger territories and it would be able to inject some buoyancy into one of the (then) poorer economies. To this end, Grenada was tentatively selected as the member state to host the capital but this was abandoned after protests from some of the parties involved, and at the London Conference the smaller islands were ruled out for consideration. Within Trinidad and Tobago the first proposed site was Chaguaramas, a few miles west of Port of Spain, but the site was part of a United States naval base. In practice, Port of Spain served as the "de facto" federal capital for the duration of the federation's existence.

Elections.

In preparation for the first federal elections, two Federation-wide parties were organised as confederations of local political parties. Both were organised by Jamaican politicians: the West Indies Federal Labour Party by Norman Manley, and the Democratic Labour Party by Alexander Bustamante. In broad terms, the WIFLP consisted of the urban-based parties throughout the Federation, while the DLP consisted of the rural-based parties. A small third party, the Federal Democratic Party was founded in November 1957 by a group of Trinidadians, although it did not win any seats.  The platforms for the two major national parties were similar in many respects. Both advocated maintaining and strengthening ties with the United Kingdom, United States, and Canada (countries with which the islands had strong cultural and economic links); encouraging and expanding tourism; working to bring British Guiana and British Honduras into the Federation and to obtain loans, financial aid, and technical assistance. Despite these similarities, there were differences. The WIFLP had advocated the encouragement of agriculture while the DLP had promised a climate favourable to both private industry and labour, development of human and economic resources. The WIFLP promised to encourage the Bahamas (in addition to British Guiana and British Honduras) to join the Federation, whereas the DLP did not. The WIFLP also campaigned to establish a central bank for the extension of credit resources and advocated a democratic socialist society and full internal self-government for all the unit territories, whilst avoiding the issues of freedom of movement and a customs union. The DLP said nothing about full internal self-government, attacked socialism, wished to avoid high taxation (via loans and technical aid) and emphasized West Indian unity, freedom of worship and speech, and encouragement of trade unions.  Federal elections were held on March 25, 1958. The WIFLP won the election, winning 26 seats while the DLP carried 19 seats. The bulk of the WIFLP seats came from the smaller islands while the DLP carried the majority in Jamaica and Trinidad & Tobago. The DLP won 11 of the Jamaican seats and 6 of the Trinidadian seats. In appointing the Senate, Governor General Lord Hailes realized that only the St Vincent island government was DLP controlled and as a result the Senate was going to be disproportionately pro WIFLP. In a controversial decision, he contacted the opposition DLP groups in Jamaica and Trinidad, and appointed one DLP senator from each of those islands. Thus the Senate consisted of a total of 15 WIFLP members and 4 DLP members.  WIFLP leader Sir Grantley Adams of Barbados became Prime Minister. The selection of Adams as the Prime Minister was indicative of the problems the Federation would face. The expected leader of the WIFLP was Norman Manley, Premier of Jamaica, and the next logical choice was Dr. Eric Williams, Premier of Trinidad and Tobago. However, neither had contested the Federal elections, preferring to remain in control of their respective island power bases. This suggested that the leaders of the two most important provinces did not see the Federation as viable. Similarly, Alexander Bustamante, the Jamaican founder of the DLP, also declined to contest the Federal election, leaving the party leadership to the Trinidadian Ashford Sinanan. The absence of the leading Jamaican politicians from any role at the federal level was to undermine the Federation's unity.  Other members of the Council of State included:

Government services.

The Federation also had a number of units deemed to be common services for the entire federation, these were:

Federal problems.

The politics of the embryonic Federation were wrecked by struggles between the federal government and the provincial governments, and between the two largest provinces (Jamaica and Trinidad and Tobago) and the smaller provinces.  The West Indies Federation had an unusually weak federal structure. For instance, its provinces were not contained in a single customs union. Thus, each province functioned as a separate economy, complete with tariffs, largely because the smaller provinces were afraid of being overwhelmed by the large islands' economies. Also, complete freedom of movement within the Federation was not implemented, as the larger provinces were worried about mass migration from the smaller islands.  In addition, the federal government could not take its component states to task. The initial federal budget was quite small, limiting the federal government's ability to use its financial largess as a carrot. It was dependent upon grants from the United Kingdom and from its member states. The provincial budgets of Jamaica and Trinidad and Tobago were both larger than the federal budget. This led to repeated requests for those states to provide greater financing to the federal government. These requests were not well received, as Jamaica and Trinidad and Tobago together already contributed 85 percent of the federal revenue, in roughly equal portions.  Furthermore, the office of the Prime Minister was a weak one. Unlike other Westminster systems with Prime Ministers, the West Indian Federation's PM could not dissolve Parliament.

Relationship with Canada.

The Federation maintained a particularly close relationship with Canada, which had a similar past in that it was a federation of several former British colonies. In the early years, several Caribbean leaders suggested that the West Indies Federation should investigate the possibility of becoming a Canadian province.  Despite the breakdown in talks, in May 1961, Canada presented the West Indies Federation with two of the region's most important gifts: two merchant ships, named "The Federal Palm" and "The Federal Maple". These two vessels visited every island in the federation twice monthly, providing a crucial sea-link between the islands.

Dissolution.

Many reasons have been put forward to explain the demise of the federation. These include the lack of local popular support, competing insular nationalism, the weakness of the federal government, prohibitions on federal taxation and freedom of movement, inadequacies in the Federal constitution, fundamental changes made to the constitution very early in its existence, political feuds between the influential leaders, the decision of the three most influential politicians not to contest Federal elections, friction between these leaders and the Federal government, the overwhelming concentration of population and resources in the two largest units, geographic and cultural distance between the units, the lack of a history of common administration, and the impact of the period of self-government that followed the promotion from Crown Colony system.  However, the immediate catalyst for the dissolution of the Federation was Jamaican discontent. By 1961, there were a number of reasons for Jamaica's dissatisfaction with the state of affairs:  The most important reason for Jamaican dissatisfaction was the Federation's continuing colonial status. Jamaica had joined the Federation because its leaders had believed that the West Indies would quickly be granted independence. Nearly three years after the formation of the Federation, this had not occurred; meanwhile, smaller British colonies, like Cyprus and Sierra Leone, had gained independence. Thus, many Jamaicans believed that the island could and should seek independence in its own right.  There were also problems with the Federation's proposed capital in Chaguaramas, at that time still in the hands of the United States (having leased it as a naval base from the United Kingdom during World War 2). Many of the Caribbean provincial leaders wanted Chaguaramas to be the Federation's capital. Provincial leaders such as Norman Manley of Jamaica and Eric Williams pushed for handing over of Chaguaramas to the Federation from the US. However the US and the UK disagreed and the Federation's Prime Minister Grantley Adams stopped the provincial leaders from obtaining Chaguaramas. For many Jamaicans it appeared that the Federation would then just hamper their development and movement towards independence.  As a result, the Bustamante-led Jamaica Labour Party (the local component of the West Indian DLP) successfully forced Manley to hold a referendum in September 1961 on political secession from the Federation. It passed, with 54% of the vote, despite the opposition of Manley, the province's Chief Minister at the time. Manley himself lost the subsequent island elections in April 1962, and Bustamante became the first Prime Minister of an independent Jamaica on 6 August 1962.  After Jamaica left, there was an attempt to salvage a new federation from the wreckage of the old. Much depended on Premier Williams of Trinidad and Tobago, who had stated previously that he wanted a "strong federation". Premier Vere Bird of Antigua responded that his province would only be in a federation with Trinidad as an equal partner, not as "a little Tobago". He did indicate that a strong federation was acceptable provided that no attempt was made to create a unitary state.  Negotiations on this new federation began in September 1961; however, they indicated that Trinidad would have to provide 75 to 80 percent of the new Federation's revenue. Also, even though Trinidad would now represent 60 percent of the new Federation's population, the proposals under consideration would give it less than half of the seats in parliament.  By November, Williams indicated that he was now in favour of the idea of a unitary state. Failing that, he resolved to take Trinidad and Tobago into independence. In this, he was buoyed by his re-election as Trinidadian leader on December 4, 1961. Later that December, Premier Errol Barrow of Barbados met with Williams, but failed to persuade him to keep Trinidad in the Federation.  On January 14, 1962, the People's National Movement (the Williams-led Trinidad component of the WIFLP) passed a resolution rejecting any further involvement with the Federation. Williams himself stated that "one from ten leaves nought"—in other words, without Jamaica, no Federation was possible. Trinidad and Tobago became independent on August 31, 1962.  Without Trinidad and Jamaica, the remaining "Little Eight" attempted to salvage some form of a West Indian Federation, this time centred on Barbados. However, these negotiations ultimately proved fruitless. Without its two largest states, the Federation was doomed to financial insolvency. Barbados now refused to shoulder the financial burden, and Antigua and Grenada began toying with the idea of merging with Jamaica and Trinidad, respectively.

UK/West Indies Associated States (WIAS).

The West Indies Federation was legally dissolved with the Parliament of the United Kingdom's West Indies Act 1962. The remaining "Little Eight" provinces once again became separate colonies supervised directly from London, most of which became independent later on, as follows:  Montserrat remains an overseas territory of the United Kingdom. The Cayman Islands and Turks and Caicos Islands had been separated from Jamaica upon the latter's independence in 1962; Anguilla was separated from Saint Kitts and Nevis in 1980. All three remain UK territories as well.

Legacy.

The federation's currency was the West Indies dollar (though Jamaica continued to use the pound), which was later succeeded by the East Caribbean dollar, the Barbadian dollar, and the Trinidad and Tobago dollar. Successor organisations included the West Indies Associated States and CARICOM.  The Federal Supreme Court would also be succeed by a British Caribbean Court of Appeal (1962–1966) and then a West Indies Associated States Supreme Court (Court of Appeal and High Court) (1967–1980) and ultimately by an Eastern Caribbean Court of Appeal and Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court in 1981 for the OECS. More recently a Caribbean Court of Justice has been established which would also fulfill the role of the original Supreme Court if all CSME members accede to the court's appellate jurisdiction (currently Barbados, Belize and Guyana do so).  Some see the West Indies cricket team as a legacy of the Federation, although the side was actually organised thirty years prior to the birth of the federation.  Another lasting regional fixture, officially created before the Federation, is the University of the West Indies. During the Federation, the University pursued a policy of regional expansion beyond the main Jamaica campus. Two other campuses were established: one in Trinidad and Tobago, established in 1960, and one in Barbados, established a short time after the Federation dissolved in 1963. Since 2004, the West Indies Federal Archives Centre has been located on the University's Cave Hill campus in Barbados.

Stamps.

During the Federation's existence, each member continued to issue its own postage stamps as before; but on April 22, 1958, each of the members (except for the Cayman Islands) issued a set of three commemorative stamps. All of these stamps used a common design depicting a map of the Caribbean and a portrait of Queen Elizabeth II, with an inscription reading at the top and the name of the member state at the bottom. These stamps are quite common in both mint and used condition.

Prior attempts at federation.

The Federation of the West Indies was not the first attempt at a British Caribbean federation (nor would it be the last). The history of the previous attempts at federations and unions, in part, explains the failure of the 1958 Federation.  The initial federal attempts never went so far as to try to encompass all of the British West Indies (BWI), but were more regional in scope. The historical regional groupings included the British Leeward Islands, British Windward Islands and Jamaica with nearby colonies. See: History of the British West Indies.

The West Indies Federation, also known as the West Indies, the Federation of the West Indies or the West Indian Federation, was a short-lived political union that existed from 3 January 1958 to 31 May 1962. Various islands in the Caribbean that were colonies of the United Kingdom, including Trinidad and Tobago, Barbados, Jamaica, and those on the Leeward and Windward Islands, came together to form the Federation, with its capital in Port of Spain, Trinidad and Tobago. The expressed intention of the Federation was to create a political unit that would become independent from Britain as a single state—possibly similar to the Canadian Confederation, Australian Commonwealth, or Central African Federation; however, before that could happen, the Federation collapsed due to internal political conflicts over how the Federation itself would be governed or how it would viably function.

Západoindická federace ( "the West Indies Federation" nebo též "the Federation of the West Indies") byla federace tvořená většinou britských kolonií v Karibiku, Britské Západní Indie. Doba jejího trvání nebyla příliš dlouhá – mezi 3. lednem 1958 a 31. květnem 1962. Záměrem této federace pod britskou správou bylo vytvoření politické jednoty mezi karibskými državami Spojeného království, které by následně mohly vytvořit nezávislý federativní stát. Vzorem této idey byly Kanadská konfederace a Australský svaz.


Early life.

Kohut was born on 3 May 1913, in Vienna, Austria, to Felix Kohut and Else Kohut (née Lampl). He was the only child of the family. Kohut's parents were assimilated Jews living in Alsergrund, or the Ninth District, and they had married two years previously. His father was an aspiring concert pianist, but he abandoned his dreams having been traumatized by his experiences in World War I and moved into business with a man named Paul Bellak. His mother opened her own shop sometime after the war, something that few women would do at the time in Vienna. Else's relationship with her son can be described as “narcissistic enmeshment”.  Kohut was not put into school until the fifth grade. Before that he was taught by several tutors, a line of “Fräuleins and mademoiselles”. Special care was taken that he learned French. From 1924 on he attended the Döblinger Gymnasium in Grinzing or the 19th District, where the Kohuts would build a house. During his time at the school he had one more tutor, but the role of this person was to engage him in educational discussions, to take him to museums, galleries, and the opera. This man was the first friend in his life. Before that he had been isolated from his peers by his mother.  At school a special emphasis was given to the Greek and Latin languages and Greek and Roman literature. Kohut also came to appreciate Goethe, Thomas Mann and Robert Musil.  In 1929 Kohut spent two months in Saint-Quay-Portrieux in Brittany, in order to study French. At school he wrote his thesis on Euripides’ play "The Cyclops". His Latin teacher, who had anti-Semitic sentiments and later participated in the Austrian Nazi movement, accused him of having plagiariazed this work. The thesis was accepted after Kohut’s father intervened.  Kohut entered the medical faculty of the University of Vienna in 1932. His studies took six years, during which time he spent six months in internships in Paris, first at the Hôtel-Dieu and then at the Hôpital Saint-Louis. The latter hospital was specialized in the treatment of syphilis, which provided shocking experiences for Kohut. In Paris he became acquainted with Jacques Palaci, a Jewish medical student from Istanbul, and paid a visit to him in 1936. The following year Kohut’s father died of leukemia. Sometime after this Kohut entered psychotherapy with a man named Walter Marseilles, who does not seem to have been very competent at his trade. Early in 1938 Kohut began a psychoanalysis with August Aichhorn, a close friend of Sigmund Freud.  After Austria was annexed to Germany by Hitler on 12 March 1938, the new regime meant difficulties for Kohut, as he still had to take his final exams at the medical faculty. He was eventually allowed to take them, after all the Jewish professors had been removed from the university. The Nazis then effectively confiscated all property owned by Jews. The property had to be sold at much less than its real value, and much of the rest was taken by the state in taxes. Kohut eventually left Austria, landing first in a refugee camp in Kent, England. Many of his relatives, who had stayed behind, were subsequently killed in the Holocaust.  In February 1940 he was allowed to travel in a British convoy to Boston, from where he travelled to Chicago by bus. A friend from Vienna, Siegmund Levarie, who had earlier emigrated to live with an uncle in Chicago and would subsequently be a famous musicologist in the United States, arranged a visa for him and invited him to join him there. Kohut’s mother Else also emigrated to Chicago, travelling via Italy. With the money she had smuggled out of Austria, she opened a shop that she called “De Elsie’s”.

Early days in Chicago.

Kohut was able to get his first position in the South Shore Hospital in Chicago, and in 1941 he began a residence in neurology at the University of Chicago’s Billings Hospital, where he lived and worked until 1948. He was certified in neurology in 1947. Around this time he apparently decided that he would have a Christian identity, and chose the Unitarian Church as his denomination.  However, Kohut was not happy with neurology and it seems he was bored in this field. Too much of his time was spent in the laboratory and there was not enough contact with real human feelings.

Career as a psychoanalyst.

Moving into psychiatry and psychoanalysis.

In late 1942 Kohut applied to the Chicago Institute for Psychoanalysis, which had been founded by Franz Alexander in 1932, modelling it on the Berlin Psychoanalytic Institute of the 1920s. Kohut was not accepted, and the rejection was decisive. The reason for this remains unclear, but Kohut was not even allowed to begin a didactic analysis. However, he found a clever way around this impasse by going into analysis, beginning in March 1943, with Ruth Eissler, who was a fellow Viennese and a fellow analysand of August Aichhorn and a training and supervising analyst at the institute. Furthermore, Ruth Eissler’s husband Kurt R. Eissler, also an analyst, was regarded by August Aichhorn as the most promising future leader of psychoanalysis in America.  In 1944 Kohut decided to leave neurology and move into psychiatry, and in 1947 he was appointed associate professor of psychiatry at the University of Chicago. He got his certification psychiatry in 1949.  In the fall of 1946 he had already been accepted to the Chicago Institute and began immediately on its courses. In the summer of 1947, he was given his first two “control” cases, followed by a third and a fourth case in early 1948. He began to receive patients on a permanent basis in 1949. In October 1950 he took his exams, passed them and became officially an analyst. He became a training and supervising analyst as well as a member of the institute’s staff in 1953.  Unlike Franz Alexander, who had sought to shorten analyses, Kohut took as long as it took for the patients to get well in analysis. The agenda came entirely from the patient, whose job it was to say whatever occurred to him or her. He said to one of his patients: “I will do what I can to help you try and understand yourself.”  He received his patients at the institute. All his patients are said to have adored him, although in the beginning of his career he had one case with which he failed miserably. Also, during the early years of his career as an analyst, his success was mixed.  Kohut analyzed several persons, who were already analysts but who felt they had not benefited as much from their didactic analyses as they had hoped. Some did their training analyses with him. These persons included Peter Barglow, Michael Franz Basch, George Klumpner, Paul Tolpin.

Teacher of psychoanalysis.

Kohut’s work in teaching at the institute became his primary commitment for the rest of his life. He soon became known as the most gifted and creative analyst in the Chicago Institute. Together with Louis Shapiro and Joan Fleming, he rewrote the curriculum of the institute and taught its two-year theory course for a decade. The course was not one of the history of psychoanalysis but a study of “psychoanalytic psychology presented according to historical principles.” It was a very Freudian course and contained no hints of where he would later move in his theoretical views. Kohut appeared as a master of metapsychology in these lectures.  He later gave the course over to Philip Seitz, who had been auditing the course and had made notes of it that he had discussed with Kohut and then amended those notes in accordance of those discussions. This collaboration resulted in a joint article, entitled "Concepts and Theories of Psychoanalysis: Relation of Method and Theory" (1963). Seitz published his notes more than three decades later in the form of a book.  Kohut's teaching style is said to have been brilliant, but at the same time it eclipsed the minds of the listeners, and according to Paul Ornstein who took the course, the style was pedagogically a failure. Other commentators have also said that Kohut’s brilliance made his students passive and did not encourage independent thinking.  Kohut felt that analysts should be scientists and not technicians who just applied a set of rules to their work. If the latter were to be the case, the whole field of psychoanalysis would be assimilated to dynamic psychiatry and disappear forever.

Administrator in psychoanalysis.

Kohut was active in the American Psychoanalytic Association from the 1950s. He served on the board of the "Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association", and in a number of committees. But in the 1960s he rose to the top of this organization. First he was its secretary during 1961–62, then president-elect during 1962–63, and finally the president during 1964–65. This further cemented his friendship with Kurt and Ruth Eissler. Kurt Eissler was now one of the leading figures of the New York Psychoanalytic Society & Institute. He also became friends with Heinz Hartmann, who was a very important figure for him.  The last of these positions meant an incredible amount of work, preparing all kinds of meetings and working in a number of committees, as well as putting out all kinds of bush fires within the association. There was, for example, a question of whether analysts should or could express publicly their views about the mental health of Barry Goldwater.  Kohut was at time very much a representative of traditional Freudian analysis, and he was very careful not to do anything that could have been interpreted as a departure from traditional views. He was also careful about “his reputation as the chosen one to provide leadership for the next generation of psychoanalysts.” Much later he jokingly said that in the 1950s and early 1960s he was “Mr. Psychoanalysis.”  During this time Kohut became acquainted with everyone who mattered in psychoanalysis worldwide. For Kohut, the most important of these figures was Anna Freud. He first met her in 1964 in a meeting in Princeton. After that they were constantly writing to each other.  In the fall of 1966 the University of Chicago gave Freud an honorary doctoral degree. Kohut may have been among the people who initiated this idea, and when she came to Chicago for this event, she stayed with the Kohuts in their apartment. Various activities were arranged for her in Chicago, and for Kohut this visit was a great success.  In the long run Kohut began to feel that his work as the president drained his energies and kept him from developing his own ideas. He was also beginning to have ambivalent feelings about classical analysis. In addition, this position exposed him to people who were self-centered, full of themselves and narcissistic in the worst sense of the word. There was nothing wrong in the science of psychoanalysis, he felt, but the problem was in the people “who are carrying on their work on the basis of these ideas.” One could say that this was his higher education in matters related to narcissism.  Since he left his position of the president of "The American", Kohut was in 1965 elected vice-president of the International Psychoanalytical Association (IPA). In 1968 he was encouraged by Anna Freud and the Eisslers to run for the presidency of this world-wide organization, as in 1969 it was the Americans’ turn to have their representative elected. In the end it turned out that the European members of IPA were beginning to favour Leo Rangell, and thus Kohut would not stand a chance in the election. Anna Freud advised him not offer himself for a defeat, and Kohut withdrew from the race. He then explained this situation to his colleagues by saying that the presidency would have interfered with his creative work, which was a self-invented myth that many colleagues duly bought. Had Kohut been elected, it would have been likely that his first monograph, "The Analysis of the Self" would have remained his only main contribution to psychoanalytic theory.

A writer within psychoanalysis.

Early articles.

Beginning in 1946, Kohut’s friend Siegmund Levarie organized a series of concerts at the University of Chicago. In 1947, the response of the audience to a piece composed by Béla Bartók led him to write an article on some general principles of the psychology of music, which was published in 1950 in the "Psychoanalytic Quarterly" with the title “On the Enjoyment of Listening to Music.” Also in 1947 Kohut began to ponder Thomas Mann’s novella "Death in Venice". In 1950 he wrote the final version of his thoughts on this novella and presented it as his graduation paper. He decided, however, not to publish it, as Mann was still alive. This article was finally published in 1957, also in the "Psychoanalytic Quarterly", two years after Mann’s death.

On empathy.

Kohut’s first truly scientific contribution was his 1959 article on empathy, entitled "Introspection, Empathy, and Psychoanalysis: An Examination of the Relationship Between Mode of Observation and Theory", which was written for the twenty-fifth anniversary meeting of the Chicago Institute for Psychoanalysis in November, 1957, and also presented by Kohut in a psychoanalytic congress in Paris the same year.  This theme actually relates to the very foundation of psychoanalysis, the ability of one human being potentially to gain access to the psychological states of another human being. Interestingly, Sigmund Freud only mentioned this phenomenon in passing in a footnote in one of his articles (“A path leads from identification by way of imitation to empathy, that is, to the comprehension of the mechanism by means of which we are enabled to take up any attitude towards the life of another soul.” Kohut now took up the matter and gave a very thorough presentation on this subject, outlining what kind of subject matter can be approached with empathy and what cannot be approached with it. Essentially it means that empathy as a method defines the field that can be observed with its aid.  The basic thesis is that those phenomena that can be approached by means of empathy are called psychological (i.e. relate to the inner life of man), and those that cannot be approached with it, are non-psychological, i.e. physical phenomena and must be approached with our sensory equipment. The approach thus is epistemological.  Despite the warm reception of this paper in Chicago, it was initially turned down by the editors of the "Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association", on the grounds that it presented too basic a challenge to psychoanalytic theory and thus not appropriately psychoanalytic. After an intervention by Max Gitelson, who argued that the journal should engage itself in ideological censorship, the editorial board reconsidered the paper and eventually published it in 1959.

Applied psychoanalysis.

In 1960 Kohut published in the "Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association" an article entitled “Beyond the Bounds of the Basic Rule. Some Recent Contributions to Applied Psychoanalysis.” In it he deals with four psychoanalytic biographic works that had recently been published:  With regard to using a psychoanalytic approach to works of art and to the lives of artists, Kohut lists three problems:

On courage.

The article entitled “On Courage”, first published posthumously in 1985, is said to have been the most personal one Kohut wrote, with the exception of the article entitled “The Two Analyses of Mr. Z.” He examines here the actions of Franz Jägerstätter, Hans and Sophie Scholl during Hitler’s reign in Germany and their willingness of accept death as their only reward. According to Kohut, these people were not crazy, but “they represented a higher and deeper psychological truth that they reached in their actions. Their values gave them no other choice than to refuse to go along with the demands of the Nazi regime.

Mitscherlich laudation.

Kohut spoke and wrote on the post-war psychological problems of the German people when he was invited to speak in Frankfurt am Main in October 1969. He was chosen as the laudator when the Peace Prize of the German Book Trade was awarded to Alexander Mitscherlich, with whom Kohut had become acquainted since the 1950s. Mitscherlich was a medical doctor and a psychoanalyst who had written several well received books on Germany’s guilt concerning World War II and the Holocaust. Kohut’s main thesis was that Mitscherlich had applied the “analytic principle of individual cure to the therapeutic transformation of a whole population.” The audience included the President of the Federal Republic of Germany Gustav Heinemann, and the speech was broadcast live to an estimated audience of 20–30 million people.

Development of self psychology.

In the aftermath of World War II and the Holocaust, Freudian analysis focused on individual guilt and tended not to reflect the new zeitgeist (the emotional interests and needs of people struggling with issues of identity, meaning, ideals, and self-expression). Though he initially tried to remain true to the traditional analytic viewpoint with which he had become associated and viewed the self as separate but coexistent to the ego, Kohut later rejected Freud's structural theory of the id, ego, and superego. He then developed his ideas around what he called the tripartite (three-part) self.  According to Kohut, this three-part self can only develop when the needs of one's “self states”, including one's sense of worth and well-being, are met in relationships with others. In contrast to traditional psychoanalysis, which focuses on drives (instinctual motivations of sex and aggression), internal conflicts, and fantasies, self psychology thus placed a great deal of emphasis on the vicissitudes of relationships.  Kohut demonstrated his interest in how we develop our “sense of self” using narcissism as a model. If a person is narcissistic, it will allow him to suppress feelings of low self-esteem. By talking highly of himself, the person can eliminate his sense of worthlessness.

The Self psychology movement.

The beginnings.

With the exception of such persons as Louis Shapiro and Jerome Kavka, Kohut’s peers were not receptive to his new ideas. However, younger analysts, such as Arnold Goldberg, Michael Franz Basch, Paul Ornstein, Anna Ornstein, Paul Tolpin, Marian Tolpin and Ernest Wolf and in the early days John Gedo were interested in his work, and David Marcus was also involved for a while.  Goldberg eventually emerged as the central figure of the group, whereas Paul Ornstein would become the editor of Kohut’s collected works. Basch was the most original thinker of the group, but he chose to remain on its fringes.  The group met originally in Kohut’s apartment in order to discuss his manuscript of what would become "The Analysis of the Self". There were nine such meetings during the spring and early summer of 1969. The manuscript was considered to be difficult by the group, and the comments convinced Kohut that he had to write a new beginning to this book, which then became its first chapter, entitled “Introductory Considerations.” In reality this may actually have made the book even more difficult to digest than what it had been prior to the writing of this new first chapter.

"The Analysis of the Self".

"The Analysis of the Self" is Heinz Kohut’s first monograph, which was published in 1971. It is a treatise on narcissistic personality disorders, and on their psychoanalytic treatment.  As his starting point, Kohut takes the conceptual separation of "the self" (German "das Selbst") from "the ego" (German "das Ich"), which was done by Heinz Hartmann. Whereas the ego, the superego and the id are members of the psychic apparatus and thus agencies of the mind, the self is not an agency but still a content and a structure within the psychic apparatus.  The self contains two part structures, the "grandiose self" and the "omnipotent object". These are structures that are found the development of all human individuals, the healthy as well as the disturbed. They have their own developmental line, which according to Kohut (at the time) was separate from the developmental line of object love. With the narcissistically disturbed people, this development has been thwarted, and the narcissistic structures have been repressed, and thus the narcissistic energies involved with them are not in the disposal of the subject. This results in low self-esteem and many diffuse symptoms, including possible perversions.  In the course of an analysis, these structures become activated and the patient is able to transform them. With some, the grandiose self will be dominant, resulting in what is called a mirror transference, and the patient expects to receive admiration from the analyst. With others, the omnipotent object is dominant, and in this case the patient directs an idealizing transference toward the analyst.  In a normal childhood as well as in analysis, these (re)activated structures enter the process of transmuting internalization, and what follows is that the grandiose self will turn into a set of ambitions and the omnipotent object into a set of ideals.  The various other parties, such as the psychoanalyst, will be called selfobjects, because they are experienced as part of the self. Though dynamic theory tends to place emphasis on childhood development, Kohut believed that the need for such selfobject relationships does not end at childhood but continues throughout all stages of a person's life.  Kohut presented his theory as a parallel to the drive theory and the theory of the Oedipus complex. The idea was to present a theory of a type of patients whose psychological disturbance preceded the emergence of the Oedipus complex. It had traditionally been considered that these patients were too disturbed to be treated psychoanalytically. With Kohut’s theory, the psychoanalytical treatment could now be extended to these patients as well.

Personal life.

In 1948 Kohut presented case material in a seminar at the Chicago Institute, and one of the listeners was a social worker from the institute, Elizabeth Meyer. They fell immediately in love. For Kohut the decisive thing about her, as he wrote to Aichhorn, was her connection to Vienna. Meyer had spent some time in this city, had gone to analysis as Jenny Waelder’s patient and had also been Aichhorn’s student. They got married on October 9, 1948. They had one son, Thomas August Kohut (his first name being a reference to Mann, the middle name a reference to Aichhorn), born in 1950. After Thomas was born, Elizabeth Kohut gave up her day job at the institute, returning to work only in 1961 to work half days. The Kohuts also adopted informally the son of a colleague who had died and whose mother had committed suicide.  Thomas Kohut studied at the University of Chicago Lab School and eventually went through psychoanalytic training, but then decided to make a career as a historian and a psychohistorian.  Although Kohut enjoyed holiday trips to Europe, often in connection with psychoanalytic events, his favorite place for holidays was the town of Carmel in California. Beginning in 1951, the Kohuts usually spent two months there, from mid-July to mid-September. This way he could escape the hot and humid summers of Chicago, which caused him various problems due to his allergies. They always rented the same house, which was owned by an English couple that wanted to spend the summers in their native country. This house in Carmel is where Kohut did most of his writing.  In addition to the holidays in Carmel, the Kohuts also had a country house in Wisconsin, where they could spend weekends, often during the winter.  Kohut was psychologically unable to visit his native Vienna until 1957. He then visited his maternal uncle Hans Lampl, who had got back his old position as an executive of the Leykam-Josefsthal A.G. paper company. Lampl treated the Kohuts to a dinner, and used his position of influence to give a special gift to his nephew’s son.  Kohut’s mother Else also lived in Chicago, not far from Kohut’s apartment. In the 1950s and 1960s she visited the Kohut family regularly for dinners and major holidays. She is said to have been the only person who could really get under Kohut’s skin. Apparently no one in the family liked her. She would be pushy and aggressive, speak directly at other people’s faces and poke people with her finger.  After 1965, when Else was getting close to 75 years of age, she began to “demonstrate a set of circumscribed paranoid delusions.” This, together with her declining health, made it necessary for Kohut to place his mother in a nursing home in 1970. For Kohut, the fact that his mother had turned out to be crazy, was a liberating experience. He now realized that his whole life had been spent trying escape from his latently psychotic mother. He could now also understand why his father had been absent in his childhood. Strozier argues that Else’s craziness liberated Kohut’s creativity and made it possible for him to study the deeper meanings of highly regressed states and thus to write his first and most important monograph, "The Analysis of the Self". Else Kohut died in late 1972.

Political views.

Kohut was not a political person. According to his biographer Strozier, Kohut barely noticed the Nazis when they took over Vienna.  In America, he was viewed as a liberal, and he was for state control of gun ownership. He considered the Vietnam War to be immoral and stupid, yet he did not initially understand his son’s anti-war attitude. Thomas Kohut was at the time studying at Oberlin College, which had a long history in opposing all kinds of social injustice, beginning with opposition to slavery and being an important station in the Underground Railroad. Eventually Kohut came to see reason in his son’s views, and their anti-Nixon sentiments presumably gave them some common ground.

Death.

In the final week of his life, knowing that his time was at an end, Kohut spent as much time as he could with his family and friends. He fell into a coma on the evening of October 7, 1981, and died of cancer in Chicago on the morning of October 8.

Heinz Kohut (3 May 1913 – 8 October 1981) was an Austrian-born American psychoanalyst best known for his development of self psychology, an influential school of thought within psychodynamic/psychoanalytic theory which helped transform the modern practice of analytic and dynamic treatment approaches.

Heinz Kohut (3. května 1913, Vídeň, Rakousko-Uhersko – 8. října 1981, Chicago, Illinois, USA) byl rakousko-americký psycholog a psychoanalytik, který pozvolna vytvořil vlastní směr psychoanalýzy, tzv. selfpsychologii, která se v mnoha ohledech dostala až za hranici psychoanalýzy. Narodil se se Vídni, většinu svého života však prožil v americkém Chicagu.


1999.

The summers of 1999, 2000, and 2002 found Roger Waters playing his best works during the In the Flesh tour. The show consisted of his most famous tracks from the beginning of his Pink Floyd career. The demand for concert tickets were so great that the tour spanned over three years of touring. Along with the popular acclaim, the show received critical praise from various artists and magazines.  All songs written by Roger Waters except as noted.  Set 1  Set 2  Encore  † At Montreal (7/31/99), set list was revised so "Happiest Days" and "Another Brick, Pt 2" was moved from the end of set 2 to the beginning of set 1 after "Another Brick, Pt 1" (which remained for the rest of this and all through the '00 and '02 shows).  <nowiki>*</nowiki> "The Great Gig in the Sky" intro was dropped from the setlist prior to 15 August 1999

2000.

Following the startling success of the 1999 tour, Waters mounted an even more extensive tour, touching areas of the country ignored on previous tours. The set list was also altered with "The Thin Ice", "Another Brick In The Wall part 1", "The Powers That Be" and "What God Wants" being removed in favour of "Set the Controls for the Heart of the Sun", "Bravery of Being Out of Range" and new song titled "Each Small Candle". The backing band was relatively the same as the previous tour, with an addition of a backup singer and a new saxophone player for the songs "Set the Controls for the Heart of the Sun" and "Money".  All songs written by Roger Waters except as noted.  Set 1  Set 2  Encore  † The song was dropped after the first concert in Tampa, Florida.  Notes

2002.

The success of Waters' two American tours encouraged him to make his 2002 tour a world tour. The set list for 2002 was similar to the previous tour with the addition of another new song, "Flickering Flame", which was substituted periodically for "Each Small Candle" as the encore. The band also changed with the departure of Doyle Bramhall II, his wife and back up singer Sussanah Melvoin and Jon Carin. Brought in was Chester Kamen (replacing Bramhall), Linda Lewis as back up singer (who later was replaced by Carol Kenyon due to personal issues), and Harry Waters (son of frontman Roger Waters) to replace Carin. By far the most historical moment of this or any of Waters in the Flesh tours came at London's Wembley Arena as former Pink Floyd bandmate and drummer Nick Mason sat in and played both nights on "Set the Controls for the Heart of the Sun".  All songs written by Roger Waters except as noted.  Set 1  Set 2  Encore Note: At certain shows, such as the March 17th show in Caracas, among others, both "Each Small Candle" and "Flickering Flame" were performed.  † At Warsaw concert (7 June/2002) the full "Shine On You Crazy Diamond VI–IX" was played instead.  <nowiki>*</nowiki> "Set the Controls..." was moved midtour, so it played after "Dogs".

In The Flesh was a series of worldwide concert tours by Roger Waters that spanned three individual tours over the course of three years (1999, 2000, and 2002). Returning from a 12-year-long hiatus from the road, "In The Flesh" was a showcase of his best known work from his days with Pink Floyd to his most recently released solo album, 1992's "Amused to Death". The title is an allusion to the 1977 Pink Floyd tour for the "Animals" album, as well as the two songs so titled on the album "The Wall."

In the Flesh bylo třetí sólové turné britského baskytaristy a zpěváka Rogera Waterse. Čtyři části tohoto celosvětového turné byly uspořádány postupně v letech 1999–2002. Nepočítaje jednorázovou akci "The Wall - Live in Berlin" (1990) a několik dalších menších vystoupení, jednalo se o první Watersovy koncerty od roku 1987, kdy uspořádal turné Radio K.A.O.S..


Biography.

Panofsky was born in Hannover to a wealthy Jewish Silesian mining family. He grew up in Berlin, receiving his Abitur in 1910 at the Joachimsthalsches Gymnasium. In 1910–14 he studied law, philosophy, philology, and art history in Freiburg, Munich, and Berlin, where he heard lectures by the art historian Margarete Bieber, who was filling in for Georg Loeschcke.  While Panofsky was taking courses at Freiburg University, a slightly older student, Kurt Badt, took him to hear a lecture by the founder of the art history department, Wilhelm Vöge, under whom he wrote his dissertation in 1914. His topic, Dürer's artistic theory "Dürers Kunsttheorie: vornehmlich in ihrem Verhaltnis zur Kunsttheorie der Italiener" was published the following year in Berlin as "Die Theoretische Kunstlehre Albrecht Dürers". Because of a horse-riding accident, Panofsky was exempted from military service during World War I, using the time to attend the seminars of the medievalist Adolph Goldschmidt in Berlin.  Panofsky's academic career in art history took him to the University of Berlin, University of Munich, and finally to University of Hamburg, where he taught from 1920 to 1933. It was during this period that his first major writings on art history began to appear. A significant early work was "Idea: Ein Beitrag zur Begriffsgeschichte der älteren Kunstheorie" (1924; translated into English as "Idea: A Concept in Art Theory"), based on the ideas of Ernst Cassirer.  Panofsky first came to the United States in 1931 to teach at New York University. Although initially allowed to spend alternate terms in Hamburg and New York City, after the Nazis came to power in Germany his appointment in Hamburg was terminated because he was Jewish, and he remained permanently in the United States with his art historian wife (since 1916), Dorothea "Dora" Mosse (1885–1965). He and his wife became part of the Kahler-Kreis.  By 1934 Panofsky was teaching concurrently at New York University and Princeton University, and in 1935 he was invited to join the faculty of the new Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, New Jersey, where he remained for the rest of his career. In 1999, "Panofsky Lane", named in his honor, was created in the Institute's faculty housing complex.  Panofsky was a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, the British Academy and a number of other national academies. In 1954 he became foreign member of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences. In 1962 he received the Haskins Medal of The Medieval Academy of America. In 1947–1948 Panofsky was the Charles Eliot Norton professor at Harvard University; the lectures later became "Early Netherlandish Painting".  Panofsky became particularly well known for his studies of symbols and iconography in art. First in a 1934 article, then in his "Early Netherlandish Painting" (1953), Panofsky was the first to interpret Jan van Eyck's "Arnolfini Portrait" (1934) as not only a depiction of a wedding ceremony, but also a visual contract testifying to the act of marriage. Panofsky identifies a plethora of hidden symbols that all point to the sacrament of marriage. In recent years, this conclusion has been challenged, but Panofsky's work with what he called "hidden" or "disguised" symbolism is still very much influential in the study and understanding of Northern Renaissance art.  Similarly, in his monograph on Dürer, Panofsky gives lengthy "symbolic" analyses of the prints "Knight, Death, and the Devil" and "Melancolia I", the former based on Erasmus's "Handbook of a Christian Knight".  Panofsky was known to be a friend with physicists Wolfgang Pauli and Albert Einstein. His younger son, Wolfgang K. H. Panofsky, became a renowned physicist who specialized in particle accelerators. His elder son, Hans A. Panofsky, was "an atmospheric scientist who taught at Pennsylvania State University for 30 years and who was credited with several advances in the study of meteorology". As Wolfgang Panofsky related, his father used to call his sons "meine beiden Klempner" ("my two plumbers"). William S. Heckscher was a student, fellow emigre, and close friend. In 1973 he was succeeded at Princeton by Irving Lavin. Erwin Panofsky has been recognized as both a "highly distinguished" professor at the Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, New Jersey, and in Jeffrey Chipps' biography of the subject as "the most influential art historian of the twentieth century”. In 1999, the new "Panofsky Lane", in that Institute's faculty housing complex, was named in his honor.

Iconology.

Panofsky was the most eminent representative of iconology, a method of studying the history of art created by Aby Warburg and his disciples, especially Fritz Saxl, at the Warburg Institute in Hamburg. A personal and professional friendship linked him to Fritz Saxl in collaboration with whom he produced a large part of his work. He gave a short and precise description of his method in his article "Iconography and Iconology", published in 1939.

Style and the Film Medium.

In his 1936 essay "Style and Medium in the Motion Pictures (text online), Panofsky seeks to describe the visual symptoms endemic" to the medium of film.

Three strata of subject matter or meaning.

In "Studies in Iconology" Panofsky details his idea of three levels of art-historical understanding :  For Panofsky, it was important to consider all three strata as one examines Renaissance art. Irving Lavin says "it was this insistence on, and search for, meaning — especially in places where no one suspected there was any — that led Panofsky to understand art, as no previous historian had, as an intellectual endeavor on a par with the traditional liberal arts."

Manuscript of Panofsky's "Habilitationsschrift".

In August 2012, the original manuscript of Panofsky's "Habilitationsschrift" of 1920, which is entitled "Die Gestaltungsprinzipien Michelangelos, besonders in ihrem Verhältnis zu denen Raffaels" ("The Composition Principles of Michelangelo, particularly in their relation to those of Raphael"), was found by art historian Stephan Klingen in an old Nazi safe in Munich's Zentralinstitut für Kunstgeschichte.  It had long been assumed that this manuscript was lost in 1943/44 in Hamburg, as this important study was never published and the art historian's widow was unable to locate it in Hamburg. It seems as if art historian Ludwig Heinrich Heydenreich, who had studied under Panofsky, was in the possession of this manuscript from 1946 to 1970. In the Süddeutsche Zeitung, Willibald Sauerländer shed some light on the question of whether Heydenreich shared his recovery of the manuscript or not: "Panofsky has historically distanced himself from his early writings on Michelangelo, as he tired of the subject, and (according to Sauerländer) developed a professional conflict with Austro-Hungarian art historian Johannes Wilde, who accused Panofsky of not crediting him with ideas gleaned from a conversation they had about Michelangelo drawings. Perhaps Panofsky didn't care about the whereabouts of his lost work and Heydenreich was not malicious in keeping it a secret... but questions still remain."  In 2016 The Zentralinstitut für Kunstgeschichte in Munich founded the Panofsky-Professur (Panofsky Professorship). The first Panofsky Professors have been Victor Stoichita (2016), Gauvin Alexander Bailey (2017), Caroline van Eck (2018), and Olivier Bonfait (2019).

Influence on Bourdieu.

His work has greatly influenced the theory of taste developed by French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu, in books such as "The Rules of Art" and "Distinction". In particular, Bourdieu first adapted his notion of habitus from Panofsky's "Gothic Architecture and Scholasticism", having earlier translated the work into French.

Erwin Panofsky (March 30, 1892 in Hannover – March 14, 1968 in Princeton, New Jersey) was a German-Jewish art historian, whose academic career was pursued mostly in the U.S. after the rise of the Nazi regime.

Erwin Panofsky (30. března 1892 – 14. března 1968) byl německý historik umění. Přelomovými byly zejména jeho studie o renesančním umění ("Early Netherlandish Painting, Renaissance and Renascences in Western Art, Studies in Iconology: Humanist Themes in the Art of the Renaissance)".


Geography.

Ir Ovot is located south of the Dead Sea and southeast of Dimona in the Arabah valley, an arid plain located below the Negev plateau and south of the Jordan Rift Valley within the larger Great Rift Valley. The settlement abuts the Ein Hatzeva bloc of agricultural villages on the opposite side of Highway 90 near the Jordanian border, and is within the boundaries of the Arava Regional Council.

History of the kibbutz and modern village.

Originally the site of the "Ein Husub" police station during the British Mandate of Palestine, the location was captured by the Israel Defense Forces in 1948. The village of Ir Ovot was founded in 1967, in an area deserted apart from a small military base and roadside cafe on the way to Eilat. It was founded by a group of Messianic Americans led by former law student and court clerk Simcha Pearlmutter, a Jew from Miami, Florida who claimed to have received a revelation from God.

History of the Hatzeva Fortress.

First observed and documented by Alois Musil in 1902, the Roman fortress was identified on Fritz Frank's 1932 travels in the region. In 1934, Nelson Glueck identified the location as a Nabatæan caravanserai coopted by the Romans, but the site's true significance was noted by Benjamin Mazar and Michael Avi-Yonah's 1950 discovery of sherds from the First Temple period. In the 1960s, it was first suggested by Yohanan Aharoni that the site might be the same as Tamar of the Book of Ezekiel and, and Eusebius of Caesarea's "Tamara".  The first salvage excavation took place in 1972 under Aharoni and Rudolph Cohen's direction, but much of the work was carried out by Cohen, Yigal Yisrael, and recently Tali Erickson-Gini, following the 1986 involvement of "Blossoming Rose" in partnership with the Israel Antiquities Authority, Jewish National Fund and Tamar Regional Council. Known in addition to Tamar as the Hatzeva Fortress, or alternatively identified with Solomon's Tadmor, the site has six strata which indicate Early Israelite, Nabatæan, Edomite, Roman, and Early Arab occupations. It includes a 1,000-year-old shade tree, and the largest "Paliurus spina-christi" in Israel.  The area was used for training crews in site conservation before their work on the Masada site.

10th century BCE.

The earliest remains, dating to the Solomonic period of the 10th century BCE, resembles other contemporary Negev plateau fortresses and included period Negevite pottery. Ranging from tenth to sixth centuries BCE, Negevite was also uncovered at Tel Kadesh Barnea and ; it is probable that this level was destroyed by Pharaoh Shishaq like other sites of that period.

9th–8th century BCE.

The second layer consists of a very large Iron Age fortification surrounded by a casemate wall. This First Temple period building of the Kingdom of Judah is almost as large as contemporary cities such as Tel Be'er Sheva, and is four times larger than other fortified Negev cities at 10,000 square metres.  Excavation revealed a four-chambered, north-facing gate complex near the northeastern corner and three storerooms, a pair of granaries, a moat and a defensive wall. The city was possibly constructed by King Amaziah of Judah, an 8th-century BCE ruler who fortified the Judean kingdom and went to war with neighbouring Edom in the northern Arabah, or his son Uzziah whose construction of towers in the desert is mentioned by the second Book of Chronicles.

7th–6th century BCE.

A third fortress from the Late First Temple period from the 7th–6th centuries BCE was found, though because only the walls' foundations remain, reconstructing the floor plan has been difficult. However, an eastern wall with two towers set apart was reconstructed.  A pit full of smashed clay and stone, which were reassembled into 74 cultic vessels, was also found, indicating a probable Edomite shrine. Censers, chalices, altars and human figurines were unearthed outside the fortress wall on the site's northern edge in 1993, near the foundations of a small building that seems to have been a shrine. Some of the sherds resemble vessels found in an Edomite shrine at Horvat Qitmit, about to the northwest. A circular stone stamp seal discovered inside the fortress, picturing two men in long robes on either side of an altar, provides another indicator of Edomite origin. The pit recoveries dating to the end of the seventh century could possibly have been destroyed in the campaign of religious reforms spearheaded by King Josiah mentioned in Book of Kings II.

1st–4th century CE.

Evidence of Roman administrative and military presence is plentiful, and the junction of the east–west Incense Road to Gaza and the north–south route to the Red Sea probably made it an economically valuable frontier outpost.  The Roman fortress' layout is similar to other imperial outposts in the region. An official Latin inscription that dates several area strongholds to the 3rd century CE was discovered on a large limestone slab at nearby Yotvata bears. This site was the largest in the area at, and included four projecting towers on the fortress' corners. Artefacts tell of probably destruction in the middle of the fourth century CE, perhaps by a 344 earthquake, though it was promptly rebuilt with improved, stone flooring and again destroyed two decades later, probably from an earthquake in 363.  A thermæ and caravanserai of the same period were also found, and is similar to the thermæ at Ashkelon and others in the nearby country. A row of rooms from an earlier, 1st century BCE to 1st century CE fortress revealed artefacts pointing to a Nabatæan occupation predating Roman annexation. Coins bearing the likeness of Nabatæan kings were found, along with storage jars and other vessels.

7th–8th century CE.

A building fragment stratum from the Early Arab period was uncovered immediately beneath the ground surface, along with evidence of a farm located above the Roman thermæ's remains and below the modern structures.

Ir Ovot (, "Ir Obot"; "lit." City of Oboth), was an agricultural cooperative (kibbutz) in Israel 1967–1980s, located in the northeastern Negev's Arava region, and still refers to a small, group of homes near New Ein Hatzeva.

Ir Ovot (: עִיר אֹבֹת, doslova „"Město Ovot"“, v oficiálním přepisu do angličtiny: Ir Ovot) je vesnice typu kibuc v Izraeli, v Jižním distriktu, v Oblastní radě Tamar.


Plot.

The Federation starship "Enterprise" arrives at the planet Gideon to discuss diplomatic relations. The Gideons will permit only one representative, Captain Kirk, to set foot on their planet. Kirk beams down to the coordinates provided, but finds himself apparently still aboard the "Enterprise", which is now devoid of any crew.  First Officer Spock is informed that the Captain has not arrived on the planet, but the Gideon Ambassador, Hodin, refuses to allow a search team to investigate. Neither Starfleet Command nor the Federation bureaucracy is of any help, each referring the matter to the other.  Meanwhile, Kirk wanders the deserted corridors and notices a strange bruise on his arm. He eventually encounters a beautiful young woman named Odona. She claims to have no idea how she got there, recalling only that she was in an overcrowded auditorium and struggling to breathe. For the moment, Odona is just relieved to have freedom of movement. Kirk insists that she must be from Gideon, but Odona denies any knowledge of the planet.  Kirk learns from Odona that her home planet is severely overpopulated, with crowds of people everywhere and no privacy, because death is rare. To her, the privilege of being alone, even for a moment, is a dream come true. Kirk is taken by Odona's beauty, and the two share a passionate kiss. Neither notice the image of a dozen faces appearing on the view screen behind them.  As Kirk and Odona leave the bridge, Kirk hears a strange sound outside the ship. He goes to a viewport and catches a glimpse of a crowd of people looking in. The scene quickly changes to a normal view of space. Kirk confronts Odona about what is going on, but she denies knowing what is happening. She then complains of a strange feeling and faints into Kirk's arms.  Kirk carries her to sick bay, where he encounters Ambassador Hodin, who informs him that Odona, his daughter, is suffering from Vegan choriomeningitis, having been infected with Kirk's blood, which carries the virus. Hodin's plan is to infect the Gideon population with the virus, shortening their immense lifespans and relieving the population problem. Kirk is to supply the virus, while Odona's death is to serve as an inspiration for future volunteers. Questioned about alternatives, Hodin explains that the Gideon people's regenerative abilities would foil sterilization attempts, and that other methods of birth control would never be accepted.  Spock, having realized that Hodin has deceived him, goes against Starfleet orders and beams down to Kirk's original coordinates. Once there, he finds the false "Enterprise" that was built to confuse Kirk. He soon reaches Kirk and Odona, and asks Hodin not to interfere as he, Spock, is in enough trouble already. Kirk, Spock, and Odona return to the real "Enterprise", where Chief Medical Officer Dr. McCoy treats Odona's condition. Odona now plans to return to Gideon to supply the virus herself. Kirk forgives her for her deception.

Production and reception.

In 2017, Den of Geek ranked "The Mark of Gideon" as the 14th "best worst" "Star Trek" episode of the original series.

"The Mark of Gideon" is the sixteenth episode of the of the American science fiction television series "". Written by George F. Slavin and Stanley Adams and directed by Jud Taylor, it was first broadcast on January 17, 1969.

„Prokletí Gideonu“ (v originále „The Mark of Gideon“) je sedmnáctý díl třetí řady seriálu "Star Trek", později známého jako "The Original Series" (česky: "původní série"). Premiéra epizody v USA proběhla 17. ledna 1969, v České republice 25. července 2003.