 |
When
Democracy Failed: The Warnings of History
by Thom
Hartmann
Published on Sunday, March 16,
2003
With
Postscript by Jeffery Reynolds, Astoria
The 70th anniversary wasn't noticed in the United States, and
was barely reported in the corporate media. But the Germans remembered
well that fateful day seventy years ago -- February 27, 1933.
They commemorated the anniversary by joining in demonstrations
for peace that mobilized citizens all across the world.
It started
when the government, in the midst of a worldwide economic crisis,
received reports of an imminent terrorist attack. A foreign ideologue
had launched feeble attacks on a few famous buildings, but the
media largely ignored his relatively small efforts. The intelligence
services knew, however, that the odds were he would eventually
succeed. (Historians are still arguing whether or not rogue elements
in the intelligence service helped the terrorist; the most recent
research implies they did not.)
But the
warnings of investigators were ignored at the highest levels,
in part because the government was distracted; the man who claimed
to be the nation's leader had not been elected by a majority vote
and the majority of citizens claimed he had no right to the powers
he coveted. He was a simpleton, some said, a cartoon character
of a man who saw things in black-and-white terms and didn't have
the intellect to understand the subtleties of running a nation
in a complex and internationalist world. His coarse use of language
-- reflecting his political roots in a southernmost state -- and
his simplistic and often-inflammatory nationalistic rhetoric offended
the aristocrats, foreign leaders, and the well-educated elite
in the government and media. And, as a young man, he'd joined
a secret society with an occult-sounding name and bizarre initiation
rituals that involved skulls and human bones.
Nonetheless,
he knew the terrorist was going to strike (although he didn't
know where or when), and he had already considered his response.
When an aide brought him word that the nation's most prestigious
building was ablaze, he verified it was the terrorist who had
struck and then rushed to the scene and called a press conference.
"You
are now witnessing the beginning of a great epoch in history,"
he proclaimed, standing in front of the burned-out building, surrounded
by national media. "This fire," he said, his voice trembling
with emotion, "is the beginning." He used the occasion
-- "a sign from God," he called it -- to declare an
all-out war on terrorism and its ideological sponsors, a people,
he said, who traced their origins to the Middle East and found
motivation for their evil deeds in their religion.
Two weeks
later, the first detention center for terrorists was built in
Oranianberg to hold the first suspected allies of the infamous
terrorist. In a national outburst of patriotism, the leader's
flag was everywhere, even printed large in newspapers suitable
for window display.
Within
four weeks of the terrorist attack, the nation's now-popular leader
had pushed through legislation -- in the name of combating terrorism
and fighting the philosophy he said spawned it -- that suspended
constitutional guarantees of free speech, privacy, and habeas
corpus. Police could now intercept mail and wiretap phones; suspected
terrorists could be imprisoned without specific charges and without
access to their lawyers; police could sneak into people's homes
without warrants if the cases involved terrorism.
To get
his patriotic "Decree on the Protection of People and State"
passed over the objections of concerned legislators and civil
libertarians, he agreed to put a 4-year sunset provision on it:
if the national emergency provoked by the terrorist attack was
over by then, the freedoms and rights would be returned to the
people, and the police agencies would be re-restrained. Legislators
would later say they hadn't had time to read the bill before voting
on it.
Immediately
after passage of the anti-terrorism act, his federal police agencies
stepped up their program of arresting suspicious persons and holding
them without access to lawyers or courts. In the first year only
a few hundred were interred, and those who objected were largely
ignored by the mainstream press, which was afraid to offend and
thus lose access to a leader with such high popularity ratings.
Citizens who protested the leader in public -- and there were
many -- quickly found themselves confronting the newly empowered
police's batons, gas, and jail cells, or fenced off in protest
zones safely out of earshot of the leader's public speeches. (In
the meantime, he was taking almost daily lessons in public speaking,
learning to control his tonality, gestures, and facial expressions.
He became a very competent orator.)
Within
the first months after that terrorist attack, at the suggestion
of a political advisor, he brought a formerly obscure word into
common usage. He wanted to stir a "racial pride" among
his countrymen, so, instead of referring to the nation by its
name, he began to refer to it as "The Homeland," a phrase
publicly promoted in the introduction to a 1934 speech recorded
in Leni Riefenstahl's famous propaganda movie "Triumph Of
The Will." As hoped, people's hearts swelled with pride,
and the beginning of an us-versus-them mentality was sewn. Our
land was "the" homeland, citizens thought: all others
were simply foreign lands. We are the "true people,"
he suggested, the only ones worthy of our nation's concern; if
bombs fall on others, or human rights are violated in other nations
and it makes our lives better, it's of little concern to us.
Playing
on this new nationalism, and exploiting a disagreement with the
French over his increasing militarism, he argued that any international
body that didn't act first and foremost in the best interest of
his own nation was neither relevant nor useful. He thus withdrew
his country from the League Of Nations in October, 1933, and then
negotiated a separate naval armaments agreement with Anthony Eden
of The United Kingdom to create a worldwide military ruling elite.
His propaganda
minister orchestrated a campaign to ensure the people that he
was a deeply religious man and that his motivations were rooted
in Christianity. He even proclaimed the need for a revival of
the Christian faith across his nation, what he called a "New
Christianity." Every man in his rapidly growing army wore
a belt buckle that declared "Gott Mit Uns" -- God Is
With Us -- and most of them fervently believed it was true.
Within
a year of the terrorist attack, the nation's leader determined
that the various local police and federal agencies around the
nation were lacking the clear communication and overall coordinated
administration necessary to deal with the terrorist threat facing
the nation, particularly those citizens who were of Middle Eastern
ancestry and thus probably terrorist and communist sympathizers,
and various troublesome "intellectuals" and "liberals."
He proposed a single new national agency to protect the security
of the homeland, consolidating the actions of dozens of previously
independent police, border, and investigative agencies under a
single leader.
He appointed
one of his most trusted associates to be leader of this new agency,
the Central Security Office for the homeland, and gave it a role
in the government equal to the other major departments.
His assistant
who dealt with the press noted that, since the terrorist attack,
"Radio and press are at our disposal." Those voices
questioning the legitimacy of their nation's leader, or raising
questions about his checkered past, had by now faded from the
public's recollection as his central security office began advertising
a program encouraging people to phone in tips about suspicious
neighbors. This program was so successful that the names of some
of the people "denounced" were soon being broadcast
on radio stations. Those denounced often included opposition politicians
and celebrities who dared speak out -- a favorite target of his
regime and the media he now controlled through intimidation and
ownership by corporate allies.
To consolidate
his power, he concluded that government alone wasn't enough. He
reached out to industry and forged an alliance, bringing former
executives of the nation's largest corporations into high government
positions. A flood of government money poured into corporate coffers
to fight the war against the Middle Eastern ancestry terrorists
lurking within the homeland, and to prepare for wars overseas.
He encouraged large corporations friendly to him to acquire media
outlets and other industrial concerns across the nation, particularly
those previously owned by suspicious people of Middle Eastern
ancestry. He built powerful alliances with industry; one corporate
ally got the lucrative contract worth millions to build the first
large-scale detention center for enemies of the state. Soon more
would follow. Industry flourished.
But after
an interval of peace following the terrorist attack, voices of
dissent again arose within and without the government. Students
had started an active program opposing him (later known as the
White Rose Society), and leaders of nearby nations were speaking
out against his bellicose rhetoric. He needed a diversion, something
to direct people away from the corporate cronyism being exposed
in his own government, questions of his possibly illegitimate
rise to power, and the oft-voiced concerns of civil libertarians
about the people being held in detention without due process or
access to attorneys or family.
With his
number two man -- a master at manipulating the media -- he began
a campaign to convince the people of the nation that a small,
limited war was necessary. Another nation was harboring many of
the suspicious Middle Eastern people, and even though its connection
with the terrorist who had set afire the nation's most important
building was tenuous at best, it held resources their nation badly
needed if they were to have room to live and maintain their prosperity.
He called a press conference and publicly delivered an ultimatum
to the leader of the other nation, provoking an international
uproar. He claimed the right to strike preemptively in self-defense,
and nations across Europe -- at first -- denounced him for it,
pointing out that it was a doctrine only claimed in the past by
nations seeking worldwide empire, like Caesar's Rome or Alexander's
Greece.
It took
a few months, and intense international debate and lobbying with
European nations, but, after he personally met with the leader
of the United Kingdom, finally a deal was struck. After the military
action began, Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain told the nervous
British people that giving in to this leader's new first-strike
doctrine would bring "peace for our time." Thus Hitler
annexed Austria in a lightning move, riding a wave of popular
support as leaders so often do in times of war. The Austrian government
was unseated and replaced by a new leadership friendly to Germany,
and German corporations began to take over Austrian resources.
In a speech
responding to critics of the invasion, Hitler said, "Certain
foreign newspapers have said that we fell on Austria with brutal
methods. I can only say; even in death they cannot stop lying.
I have in the course of my political struggle won much love from
my people, but when I crossed the former frontier [into Austria]
there met me such a stream of love as I have never experienced.
Not as tyrants have we come, but as liberators."
To deal
with those who dissented from his policies, at the advice of his
politically savvy advisors, he and his handmaidens in the press
began a campaign to equate him and his policies with patriotism
and the nation itself. National unity was essential, they said,
to ensure that the terrorists or their sponsors didn't think they'd
succeeded in splitting the nation or weakening its will. In times
of war, they said, there could be only "one people, one nation,
and one commander-in-chief" ("Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein
Fuhrer"), and so his advocates in the media began a nationwide
campaign charging that critics of his policies were attacking
the nation itself. Those questioning him were labeled "anti-German"
or "not good Germans," and it was suggested they were
aiding the enemies of the state by failing in the patriotic necessity
of supporting the nation's valiant men in uniform. It was one
of his most effective ways to stifle dissent and pit wage-earning
people (from whom most of the army came) against the "intellectuals
and liberals" who were critical of his policies.
Nonetheless,
once the "small war" annexation of Austria was successfully
and quickly completed, and peace returned, voices of opposition
were again raised in the Homeland. The almost-daily release of
news bulletins about the dangers of terrorist communist cells
wasn't enough to rouse the populace and totally suppress dissent.
A full-out war was necessary to divert public attention from the
growing rumbles within the country about disappearing dissidents;
violence against liberals, Jews, and union leaders; and the epidemic
of crony capitalism that was producing empires of wealth in the
corporate sector but threatening the middle class's way of life.
A year
later, to the week, Hitler invaded Czechoslovakia; the nation
was now fully at war, and all internal dissent was suppressed
in the name of national security. It was the end of Germany's
first experiment with democracy.
As we
conclude this review of history, there are a few milestones worth
remembering.
February
27, 2003, was the 70th anniversary of Dutch terrorist Marinus
van der Lubbe's successful firebombing of the German Parliament
(Reichstag) building, the terrorist act that catapulted Hitler
to legitimacy and reshaped the German constitution. By the time
of his successful and brief action to seize Austria, in which
almost no German blood was shed, Hitler was the most beloved and
popular leader in the history of his nation. Hailed around the
world, he was later Time magazine's "Man Of The Year."
Most Americans
remember his office for the security of the homeland, known as
the Reichssicherheitshauptamt and its SchutzStaffel, simply by
its most famous agency's initials: the SS.
We also
remember that the Germans developed a new form of highly violent
warfare they named "lightning war" or blitzkrieg, which,
while generating devastating civilian losses, also produced a
highly desirable "shock and awe" among the nation's
leadership according to the authors of the 1996 book "Shock
And Awe" published by the National Defense University Press.
Reflecting
on that time, The American Heritage Dictionary (Houghton Mifflin
Company, 1983) left us this definition of the form of government
the German democracy had become through Hitler's close alliance
with the largest German corporations and his policy of using war
as a tool to keep power: "fas-cism (fbsh'iz'em) n. A system
of government that exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right,
typically through the merging of state and business leadership,
together with belligerent nationalism."
Today,
as we face financial and political crises, it's useful to remember
that the ravages of the Great Depression hit Germany and the United
States alike. Through the 1930s, however, Hitler and Roosevelt
chose very different courses to bring their nations back to power
and prosperity.
Germany's
response was to use government to empower corporations and reward
the society's richest individuals, privatize much of the commons,
stifle dissent, strip people of constitutional rights, and create
an illusion of prosperity through continual and ever-expanding
war. America passed minimum wage laws to raise the middle class,
enforced anti-trust laws to diminish the power of corporations,
increased taxes on corporations and the wealthiest individuals,
created Social Security, and became the employer of last resort
through programs to build national infrastructure, promote the
arts, and replant forests.
To the
extent that our Constitution is still intact, the choice is again
ours.
Thom
Hartmann lived and worked in Germany during the 1980s, and
is the author of over a dozen books, including "Unequal
Protection" and "The Last Hours of Ancient Sunlight."
This article is copyright by Thom Hartmann, but permission
is granted for reprint in print, email, blog, or web media
so long as this credit is attached.
Postscript
Jeffery Reynolds, Astoria
OR
Note the shock
and awe parallels between Germany in 1933 and USA today. There
is only one word which accurately defines the combination of
the massive, nearly four score billion wartime military appropriations
budget to include a massive multi-million dollar payment to
HALLIBURTON which still retains vice-president un-elect Dick
Cheney on it's upper echelon payroll. Apparently HALLIBURTON
will be granted the task of putting out oil fires from burning
wells and securing them for the benefit of the USA. This union
between government and industry with ideological right leanings
and restriction of the rights of free people has been known
the world over for nearly a century already as FASCISM.
Don't
be fooled by terms like allies, coalition, nor treason, terrorism,
and patriotic.
Fascism:
(from Latin fascis bundle or fasces group) a reference to bundles
of sticks used to fill a ditch. Notably however in 2: a political
philosophy, movement or regime that exalts nation or race and
stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial
leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible
suppression of opposition.
Think!
Take notice to the issue which was on the house floor on Monday
the 24th which proposed to enact a TREASON law which could sentence
those found guilty of violating it to life in prison. How could
you or I be found guilty? Involvement in acts which "disrupt
the flow of commerce, or the operation of any educational, law
enforcement, or government organization" would be sufficient
grounds. Thank you Senator John Minnis.
Do you
remember the scores of average law-abiding folks swept up in
the chaos of the Seatlle WTO protests, many of whom were attacked
and chased on the streets by police as they tried to comply
with orders (which were in violation of the Bill of Rights)
to disperse??
Ask
yourself some questions about the definitions of violence. What
is the distinction between a newsstand box vandalized by "anarchists"
in such an event compared with the violence of Seattle's finest
deputies capriciously spraying streams of pepper spray in the
eyes of incapacitated and compliant people who are in the act
of leaving and going home -- and many of which were only there
to begin with because that is where they were every day at that
time for the purposes of work, commerce and transportation.
Think about the acts and sources of each of those examples of
violence. (Please note that such a newsbox today is stuffed
with images which glorify the "shock and awe" of our
new equipment and weapons, the military coordination of our
soldiers, and articles extolling the virtues of our righteous
anti-terrorist cause!) Those are free words in the newsstand
headlines for all to see and to leave for all others to make
their own assessment. Free words which are repeated ad nauseum
in every media form, words that seek to define the context of
any debate. Do they warrant an alternative?
Think!
Share
your own thoughts about this article, Jeffery's postscript,
and/or the current situation abroad and at home, at The
Confessional.
|