by Michael Luick-Thrams

           Life in the Third Reich and Adolf Hitler: each evokes myriad images of their own, yet neither can be fully understood without the other. So pervasive and absolute was the influence of Adolf Hitler that his overbearing presence and the Nazi Party he helped create permeated virtually every aspect of German society from 1933 to 1945. Perhaps more than any other individual, he changed the course of the twentieth century and of Western civilization by initiating such a cataclysmic world war. Because history has recorded such a horrific, other-than-human picture of him, however, it is difficult to truly understand Adolf Hitler: the maniac, the menace—the man.

Besides the thousands already compiled, endless volumes more could be written about the frustrated, ambitious Austrian drifter who came to lead one of the most totalitarian states ever devised. The world already knows the intrigue of Hitler’s dubious heritage, his psychotic mother, Clara and his violent father, Alois. Psychologists have explained how his traumatic childhood warped his mind, while historians have told of the lonesome, lonely youth’s bullying tendencies, his vivid racial prejudice and grandiose delusions. Thorough accounts tell of Hitler’s leaving his native Braunau, a small, unimportant town on the German-Austrian border and how he roamed Vienna in search of employment while living in flop houses, still devastated from a rejection by the prestigious Academy of Fine Arts. The aborted Beer Hall Putsch, Hitler’s rise to power as head of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party and his domination over Germany also are well known. So, too, is the war he instigated and its subsequent destruction of much of Europe—including the country for which he had promised to sacrifice everything, ironically even its survival. The life of Hitler, then, remains today one of the most familiar of recent epic dramas.

Looking beyond the many other aspects of the man’s life already considered, what did Hitler think of the United States—its people, its history, its potential to rival the hegemony of European imperialism? How fully did his views of the United States reflect his own cultural biases and the popular views of Europeans of his day? What did the aspects of the U.S. he chose to focus on indicate about his own worldview and aspirations? To what extent did Hitler’s misguided, self-serving assumption that German-Americans would join the Pan-Teutonic cause falsely assure him the success of his dream of world domination? What did his meetings with individual U.S. Americans or their personal glimpses of him reveal about his personality, his dilettantic ignorance and his plans for Nazified Germany?

Like the majority of his contemporary fellow Europeans, Hitler entertained contrasting images of the United States as being both a promised land of unlimited possibilities, where a hardworking soul could better her or his lot and, at the same time, a wild, barbaric young country made rich from the clever exploitation of endless natural resources. In 1924 Hitler included in Mein Kampf a tedious, distorted history of his childhood and young adulthood. In it he portrayed himself as a pioneer of sorts, possessing the spirit of those who “shake the dust of Europe from their feet with the irrevocable intention of founding a new existence in the New World and conquering a new home.” These people, he wrote, take their lives in their own hands: “Released from all the old, paralyzing ideas of profession and position, environment and tradition, they snatch at every livelihood that offers itself, grasp at every sort of work, progressing step by step to the realization that honest labor, no matter of what sort, disgraces no one.” Hitler claimed “I, too, was determined to leap into this new world, with both feet, and fight my way through.”

While saying that “experience shows that all those elements which emigrate consist of the healthiest and most energetic natures,” Hitler maintained that “among these ‘emigrants’ we must count, not only those who go to America, but to an equal degree the young farmhand who resolves to leave his native village for the strange city.” Hitler’s romantic impressions of Americana shifted considerably, however, by the time he left the relative political obscurity he had known while writing poor prose at the Landsberg prison and became the Chancellor of Germany in 1933. When his foreign press chief Ernst Hanfstaengl once suggested that he might gain political advantage by visiting the U.S., the temperamental Hitler replied “What is America but millionaires, beauty queens, stupid records and Hollywood...”

Hitler admired the United States’ strict immigration quotas, seeing them as favoring Nordic-Germanic “races” and serving as a significant—albeit late—attempt to curb the immigration of undesirables: Mediterranean and Slavic peoples, Blacks, Asians and Jews. Of the latter, Hitler lamented what he saw as the Jewish control of U.S. economics and society. Judaism, he said, threatened the racial purity of the sizeable Germanic stock to be found in the New World. Still, the relatively recent imposition of immigration quotas by the U.S. government provided a model for the world of how to control the “racial mixing” he so desperately feared and loathed. As proof that “in every mingling of Aryan blood with that of lower peoples the result was the end of the cultured people,” he pointed to North America, “whose population consists in by far the largest part of Germanic elements who mixed but little with the lower colored peoples [and thus] shows a different humanity and culture from Central and South America, where the predominantly Latin immigrants often mixed with the aborigines on a large scale. By this one example, we can clearly and distinctly recognize the effect of racial mixture. The Germanic inhabitant of the American continent...rose to be master of the continent; [such a person] will remain the master as long as he does not fall a victim to defilement of the blood.”

Supposedly, the only U.S. American Hitler ever respected was Henry Ford, whom he regarded “not so much as an industrial wonder-worker bur rather as a reputed anti-Semite and a possible source of funds,” the alleged request of which the auto magnate refused to grant--although Ford did help publicize Hitlerian ideas in other ways; Hitler also considered the Ku Klux Klan to be possible political allies. [The "modern science" of eugenics (or "race-betterment”) which the Nazis peddled was a school of thought pioneered early in the 20^th century by U.S. American “social scientists” and encouraged by significant support from the Carnegie and Ford Foundations; many related conferences were held and books published  in the United States at that time.]

While fascinated by American racists, Hitler was still outraged by the political values and intervention of Woodrow Wilson—an earlier U.S. president whom he described as “an American medicine man who found the formula that deceived the German people.” The U.S. had entered the recent World War against Germany, he said, because Jewish war profiteers and a Jewish press coerced a generally honorable people into conflict with the German Vaterland. By stating erroneous “facts,” twisting contexts and fabricating events, Hitler argued that the U.S.’ decisive entry into the war did not change the “reality” that Germany was not to blame for earlier hostilities. It was Wilson, he repeatedly alleged—in collusion with German socialists and Jews—who had betrayed the German people. The Allies and treasonous Germans, Hitler claimed, had deceived but not defeated the Germans.

Hitler also offered condescending assessments of those in power in the United States during his own reign. Characteristically, having long blamed Germany’s demise at Versailles and its disastrous years under the Weimarer Republic on Leftists and Jews, after the bombing of Pearl Harbor Hitler blamed the Second World War on Franklin Delano Roosevelt, charging the current U.S. president had incited the Poles to war and aggravated French suffering by supplying the Reynaudist resistance. Hitler sickly purported that Roosevelt had become “Judaised” by surrounding himself with Jews and had conspired to begin the war in order to shift attention from his own failing domestic policies. Erroneously maintaining that Roosevelt “did not succeed in bringing about even the slightest improvement in his own country,” he further implied that F.D.R. himself was a threat to the United States.

In truth, Hitler retained what had always been a superficial understanding of the United States. In charge of the Nazis’ image abroad, Ernst "Putzi" Hanfstaengl tried to rectify this, yet Hitler continued to see the U.S. largely as irrelevant to European affairs. Hanfstaengl said Hitler thought of the United States mostly in connection with the “Jewish problem,” but ignored it because he could not solve the “problem” immediately. Also, supposedly because it could not control its own “gangsters,” Hitler considered the U.S. government unable to play a significant role on the international scene. And, while he pledged a peaceful relationship with the Western hemisphere and generally approved of the Monroe Doctrine, he planned for Germany to replace Spain and Portugal as the cultural leader of Latin America, saying “We shall build a new Germany there.”

Hitler made overtures towards settling Germans in Latin American countries like Brazil, Argentina and Bolivia—and even cast longing eyes toward Mexico—yet saw the precarious nature of imperialism that is not based in a colonizer’s own continent. “Today many European states are like pyramids stood on their heads” he said. “Their European area is absurdly small in comparison to their weight of colonies, foreign trade, etc. We may say: summit in Europe, base in the whole world.” The “American Union”—as he always insisted on calling the United States—provided an example for European empires because unlike them, the U.S. “possesses its base in its own continent and touches the rest of the earth only with its summit. And from this comes the immense inner strength of this state and the weakness of most European colonial powers.” Hitler realized that in contrast to Britain and France which relied on colonies flung literally across the globe, the U.S.’ empire remained unhampered by nativistic movements for liberation, outside threat or the costs of trans-global shipping and administration.

The eventual dictator of Germany let it be known early in his political career that although he considered it presently still a peripheral player in the global power-brokering arena and always on the brink of revolution, the United States posed a threat to the interests of an expanded German Reich in the future. In his rambling, poorly-written Mein Kampf, Hitler explained that “historically,” because England lost its prize North American colonies long ago, it had since taken to keeping the “individual state powers of Europe in a state of general paralysis resulting from mutual rivalries.” More pressing now, however, was the U.S.’ own rise to power. Saying “we must regard as giant states, first of all the American Union, then Russia and China,” Hitler resented the U.S.’ phenomenal success and ascendancy in the world, assuming it would directly compete with relatively small, mostly land-locked Germany. Unless, that is, Germany would claim its rightful place in the world and assume dominance over Europe, if not much of the entire planet.

How could Germany accomplish a global takeover? Through German ingenuity and might—and the aid of Germanic peoples living in other lands. An otherwise strict racist, Hitler made “no distinction between German nationals and Germans by birth who are citizens of a foreign country. Superficially we shall have to make allowances for such citizenship.” He planned to orchestrate from Berlin a worldwide movement of German expatriates and those descended from German emigrants to arise and seize power of the countries where they had settled. Early in the Third Reich the Nazi regime sent agents to distribute nationalistic propaganda among Germanic peoples in North and South America—even plotting with some to foment armed rebellion. Still, Hitler insisted “We shall not land troops like William the Conqueror and gain Brazil by strength of arms. Our weapons are not visible ones. Our conquistadors...have a more difficult task than the original ones, and for this reason they have more difficult weapons.” What were these special weapons? The same ones that had conquered the German people and destroyed the Weimarer Republic: the blatant, cynical untruths of the Nazi propaganda machine.

Hitler planned ultimately to win the Western hemisphere not through military attack but through the subversion of their governments, made possible by their own institutionalized weaknesses. Again spreading misinformation, half-truths and nationalistic tracts, the Nazis intended to arouse the sentiment of German nationals and descendents until they worked in concert with the “political mother country” to establish a global German empire. Hitler instructed foreign agents working in the name of Nazism that their task was to “train all Germans, without distinction, unconditionally to place their loyalty to Germandom before their loyalty to the foreign state. Only in this way will you be able to fulfill the difficult tasks I shall give you.” He offered the stern warning, though, that “Whoever opposes you should know that he has nothing more to expect from the German Reich. He will be outlawed for all time. And in due course he will reap the fruits of his treacherous attitude.” In no uncertain terms Hitler wanted the people of the Americas to know that he intended no less than to spread German rule over the entire earth.

 =================================
 

*As Europe’s historical battlefield of struggles for continental power (the Thirty Years’ War, the Napoleonic War, etc.), long before Hitler came to power Germans suffered a self-righteous victim complex that bore for many their brutal behavior under Nazism. Feeling victimized by “foreigners” they victimized others enmasse.

=================================

Subject: Address by Adolf Hitler to the Reichstag, Sept. 1, 1939.
          In spring 2003 Jim Breslin of Newsday wrote the following piece, comparing George Bush's reasons for war to Hitler's in 1939:

          At 8 o'clock last night, the Sikh in a blue turban in the subway change booth at 42nd Street gave me a little wave and I waved back. Suddenly, he was a front-line soldier in a war. I designate the subway at Times Square as a prime target in America in the war with Iraq.

          I had just been at the public library, where I discovered the speech that started World War II. I print much of it here. It is darkly familiar to what we have been hearing here, when for the first time in American history we became all the things we ever hated and invaded another country. Herewith the speech:

Address by Adolf Hitler to the Reichstag, Sept. 1, 1939
For months we have suffered under the torture of a problem which the 
Versailles Diktat created - a problem that has deteriorated until it 
becomes intolerable for us ...

As always, I attempted to bring about, by the peaceful method of 
making proposals for revision, an alteration of this intolerable 
position. 
It is a lie when the outside world says that we only tried to carry our 
revisions through by pressure. Fifteen years before the National 
Socialist Party came to power there was the opportunity of carrying out 
these revisions by peaceful settlements and understanding. On my 
own initiative I have, not once but several times, made proposals for 
the revision of intolerable conditions. All these proposals, as you 
know, 
have been rejected - proposals for the limitation of armaments and, 
even if necessary, disarmament, proposals for the limitation of 
warmaking, proposals for the elimination of certain methods of modern 
warfare ... You know the endless attempts I made for peaceful 
clarification and understanding of the problem of Austria, and later of 
the problem of the Sudetenland, Bohemia and Moravia. It was all in 
vain.

It is impossible to demand that an impossible position should be 
cleared up by peaceful revision, and at the same time constantly reject 
peaceful revision. It is also impossible to say that he who undertakes 
to carry out the revisions for himself transgresses a law, since the 
Versailles Diktat is not law to us.

In the same way, I have tried to solve the problems of Danzig, the 
Corridor, etc., by proposing a peaceful discussion. That the problems 
had to be solved was clear. It is quite understandable to us that the 
time when the problem was to be solved had little interest for the 
Western Powers. But time is not a matter of indifference to us ...

For four months I have calmly watched developments, although I never 
ceased to give warnings. In the last few days I have increased these 
warnings ...

I made one more final effort to accept a proposal for mediation on the 
part of the British government. They proposed, not that they themselves 
should carry out the negotiations, but rather that Poland and Germany 
should come into direct contact and once more pursue negotiations.

I must declare that I accepted this proposal and worked out a basis for 
these negotiations which are known to you. For two whole days I sat in 
my government and waited to see whether it was convenient for the 
Polish government to send a plenipotentiary or not. Last night they did 
not send us a plenipotentiary, but instead informed us through their 
ambassador that they were still considering whether and to what extent 
they were in a position to go into the British proposals. The Polish 
government also said they would inform Britain of their decision.

Deputies, if the German government and its leader patiently endured 
such treatment Germany would deserve only to disappear from the 
political stage. But I am wrongly judged if my love of peace and my 
patience are mistaken for weakness or even cowardice. I, therefore, 
decided last night and informed the British government that in these 
circumstances I can no longer find any willingness on the part of the 
Polish government to conduct serious negotiations with us.

The other European states understand in part our attitude. I should 
like 
all to thank Italy, which throughout has supported us, but you will 
understand for the carrying on of this struggle ... we will carry out 
this 
task ourselves.

This night for the first time, Polish regular soldiers fired on our
territory. Since 5:45 a.m. we have been returning the fire and from now on 
bombs will be met with bombs. Whoever fights with poison gas will be 
fought with poison gas. Whoever departs from the rules of humane 
warfare can only expect that we shall do the same ... until the safety, 
security of the Reich and its rights are secured.

          On that night, Hitler used this dry, unimaginative language to start a world war that was to kill 60 million, and they stopped counting.

          Last night, George Bush, after speech after speech of this same dry, flat, banal language, started a war for his country, and we can only beg the skies to keep it from spreading into another world war. 

                                                                                                                                  copyright © 2003, Newsday, Inc. 

top

=================================

On State Lies

          What follows is from the book Nuremberg Diary, by Gustave Gilbert, who interviewed Hermann Goering in prison. Goering had been Commander-in-Chief of the Luftwaffe, President of the Reichstag, Prime Minister of Prussia and Second in Command of the Third Reich:

Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger. It works the same way in any country.

-- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials, 18 April 1946

For more on Goering, see
http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/Holocaust/goering.html  or http://www.snopes.com/quotes/goering.htm

top

=================================

Chronology of the Third Reich

To better understand the steps in which the Third Reich nightmare took form, it helps to know the major developments in Nazi Germany from Hitler’s ascendancy until his death. The brief summary that follows outlines the rise and fall of the Third Reich.

1933

Jan.                 Adolf Hitler and conservative leader Franz von Papen form a coalition with Hitler as its head. German Chancellor Kurt von Schleicher—failing to attract splinter groups and losing majority-party control over the Reichstag—resigns. President Paul von Hindenburg reluctantly agrees to offer Hitler the chancellorship, which the Nazis celebrate with dramatic evening torch processions through Berlin.

Feb.                 Hitler issues the Thirty-three Decrees—effectively banning opposition parties from functioning—and orders the Nazis to raid Communist Party headquarters. Later that month [many historians agree] the Nazis burn the Reichstag, blaming the destruction of Germany’s Parliament building on the Communists and using the incident to decree presidential emergency powers.

March             Dachau opens near Munich as the Nazis’ first concentration camp and the SA jail thousands of people, launching what will become the common tactic of simply arresting and incarcerating anyone who opposes the regime. In nation-wide elections the Nazis fail to win a majority of German votes, but a deal with the Deutsche Nationale Volks Partei affords them control of the Reichstag. The SA subsequently force all provincial governments to resign in favor of centralized rule based in Berlin; the Bavarian government resists and is seized. The puppet Reichstag passes the Enabling Law, giving Hitler special powers as Chancellor, as well as the First Coordination Law of States and Reich, an attempt to exercise greater centralized power. Hitler appoints Joseph Goebbels Propaganda Minister—and, in return for Party favors, Ernst Hanfstaengl as Foreign Press Chief.

April                State-sponsored boycott of Jewish shops and professionals decreed. The Reichstag passes the Second Coordinating Law, determining the appointment of provincial governors, as well as laws erasing all separation between Reich, provincial or civil service bureau. Except for Nazi publications, the government demands control over all media. Hitler appoints Rudolf Hess as the Nazi Party Deputy Leader.  

May                 Independent labor unions banned, replaced by the state-run German Labor Front. Goebbels organizes a national book-burning campaign.

June-July            Between 22 June and 5 July, six major political parties forcibly dissolved, leaving the Nazis as legally the only remaining party. Hitler and Pope Pius XI sign the Concordant, a complicit agreement between the Third Reich and the Vatican.

Sept.                The Fifth Nazi Party Rally held in Nuremberg, a turning point for the ascending National Socialists and a Hitler eager to secure his power.

Oct.                 Reich Entailed Farm Law stabilizes small-farm ownership. Journalists required to register in order to write or broadcast.

Nov.                Official national referendum claims ninety-five percent of the adult population approves of Nazi policy. Kraft durch Freude—Strength through Joy—campaign launched by the official German Labor Front as a ploy to pacify workers.

Dec.                 Reichstag Fire trial ends with the Dutch-born communist Marinus van der Lubbe found guilty and subsequently executed.

1934

March             Former German Chancellor Heinrich Bruening voluntarily flees the country for refuge in the United States. Having fallen out of favor with the Fuehrer and discovering a plot to liquidate him by being dropped from a plane, Ernst Hanfstaengl flees the Third Reich for fear of his life—only to be interned in Canada.

April                Himmler becomes inspector of the Prussian Gestapo.

June                Hitler initiates the “Roehm Purge,” ostensibly because of an alleged assassination attempt on his life; Hitler puts the army on state-of-emergency notice. In an atmosphere of confusion and intrigue, Goering denounces the monarchists and the SS prepare for a possible coup d’etat.

July                 Roehm shot in his jail cell; the Reichstag passes a law pardoning all recent state-sponsored killings and Hitler addresses the nation, rationalizing the purge. Austrian Chancellor Engelbert Dollfuss killed in an attempted Nazi coup.

Aug.                President Paul von Hindenburg dies; the Nazis abolish the German Presidency, making Hitler the supreme commander of the Third Reich and requiring loyalty oaths of all German officials.

Oct.                 All workers forcibly coerced to join the German Labor Front.

1935

Jan.                 A Saar plebiscite returns the Saarland to German rule.

March             Hitler denounces the Treaty of Versailles’ disarmament clauses and orders universal conscription of all German young men.

April                The German military establishes the Luftwaffe, the new German airforce.

Sept.                Nuernberg Laws passed removing the rights of all Jews in German territory. The Nazis declare their swastika banner the German national flag.

Nov.                National Law of Citizenship passed, defining a “Jew” and “Mischling”—individuals of mixed race. The regime declares being Aryan prerequisite to holding public office. First Decree of the Law for the Protection of German Blood and Honor passes, forbidding marriages between Aryans, Jews and Mischling.

1936

Feb.                 The Gestapo gains reign over the entire nation.

March             The German government disregards the Locarno Treaty of 1928 when its troops re-enter the Rhineland.

June                The Reichsfuehrer SS commander combines his post with the command of all German police. The government announces compulsory Labor Service.

July                 The Spanish Civil War begins, providing rehearsal for the Second World War.

Aug.                The XI Olympiad Games open in Berlin, forcing the Nazi regime to exhibit its best behavior; oppression of Jews relaxed. German arrogance over sports victories pierced by the success of Jesse Owens, a Black U.S. American.

Nov.                Rome and Berlin announce an Axis agreement, as well as the Anti-Comintern Pact with Japan. German bombers arrive in Spain.

1937

June                SS orders those jailed for racial offenses to be sent to concentration camps.

Nov.                Italy signs Anti-Comintern Pact.

1938

Feb.                 Hitler assumes role of Minister of War and Commander in Chief of the military; he appoints Joachim von Ribbentrop as Foreign Minister. Hitler calls Austrian Chancellor Kurt von Schuschnigg to Berchtesgaden and gives ultimatum to surrender Austrian autonomy.

March             Germany annexes Austria without an armed struggle and applies all German laws to Austria—now renamed “Ostmark” and headed by Nazi collaborator, Artur Seyss-Inquart.

April                All Jews required to register their wealth.

June                Nazis destroy a Munich synagogue; all Jews required to register businesses.

July                 British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain visits Hitler at Berchtesgaden to discuss the future of Czechoslovakia.

Aug.                Nazis destroy a Nuernberg synagogue; all Jews ordered to use either “Israel” or “Sara” as their middle names, effective in 1939.

Sept.                Chamberlain meets with Hitler at Godesberg, then with French Prime Minister Edouard Daladier and Benito Mussolini at Munich; they agree to allow Germany to occupy the Sudetenland.

Oct.                 The Wehrmacht occupies the Sudetenland; seventeen thousand Polish Jews expelled from the region and all Jews’ passports stamped with a distinguishing “J”.

Nov.                German Ambassador to France Ernst vom Rath shot by the Polish-born Jew Herschel Grynszpan, providing an excuse for the Nazis to instigate the Kristallnacht—the Night of Broken Glass—Pogrom and imprison more than twenty thousand Jews. The Nazi government decrees Jews excluded from the national economy and demands a collective fine of twelve-and-a-half million Marks to pay for damage done by Nazi mobs. Jews expelled from schools. President Roosevelt recalls the U.S. Ambassador.

Dec.                 The German government oversees Aryan confiscation of all Jewish businesses.

1939

March             Declaring them “Protectorates,” Germany occupies Bohemia and Moravia. Hitler demands that Poland surrender its legal possession of Danzig and the Polish Corridor. Spain signs the Anti-Comintern Pact.

April                All Jewish valuables confiscated; Law on Tenancies passes in an effort to house all Jews in “Jewish houses.”

Aug.                Hitler and Stalin sign Non-Aggression Pact; Britain and Poland sign mutual assistance agreement.

Sept.                Germany invades Poland and annexes Danzig, leading Britain and France to declare war on the Third Reich. The Soviet Union invades Poland, as allowed by the Non-Aggression Pact. The Germans force all Jews indoors after eight on winter evenings—nine on summer evenings—and confiscate all radios held by Jews.

1940

Feb.                 The Nazis first deport German Jews, mostly from Pomerania.

April                Germany invades Denmark and Norway.

May                 Germany invades the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg and France.

June                France surrenders at Compiegne, where the Germans had surrendered at the end of the First World War. Germany divides France into occupied and officially “unoccupied” (Vichy) zones.

July                 Romania becomes a German ally.

Aug.                The Battle of Britain begins. The Soviet Union occupies the Baltic republics of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia.

Sept.                Japan joins the Axis.

Oct.                 Germany expels all non-Germans from Alsace-Lorraine, the Saarland and Baden.

Nov.                Hungary, Romania and Slovakia sign treaties with Nazi Germany.

1941

Jan.                 Germany and the Soviet Union forge trade and boundary agreements. Hitler forms the Afrika Korps to send to Libya and occupies Bulgaria.

April                Germany invades Yugoslavia and Greece.

May                 Rudolf Hess flies to Britain in an attempt to negotiate an end to the war.

June                Germany invades the Soviet Union.

July                 Goering orders all occupied lands cleared of Jews. German troops reach the Ukraine.

Sept.                The German government requires all Jews to wear yellow stars and begins a general deportation of German Jews. The Wehrmacht takes Kiev and begins its siege on Leningrad.

Nov.                The German assault on Moscow begins to fail. Sensing that the U.S. entry into the war nears, the German Propaganda Ministry begins excluding U.S. American journalists from press conferences and government officials begin excluding U.S. diplomats from state functions.

Dec.                 Japan attacks the U.S. navy at Pear Harbor, as well as Dutch and British territories in Asia. War ensues between the United States, Germany and Japan. The Gestapo occupies the United States Embassy and its compound, while the German Foreign Office interns all U.S. Americans remaining in the Third Reich at Bad Nauheim, a converted resort near Frankfurt am Main.

1942

Jan.                 At the first “United Nations” conference—held in Washington—Britain, France, the Soviet Union and the United States agree not to sign separate peace agreements with a defeated Germany. In the Berlin suburb of Wannsee, the Nazi government decides to implement the “Final Solution” to the “Jewish problem.”

April                Jews banned from all German pubic transportation.

May                 The German army pushes the British out of Libya. British bombing raids on Germany intensify.

June                The Nazis initiate mass gassings at Auschwitz. The German government repatriates all remaining U.S. Americans captured inside the Third Reich the previous December in exchange for the return of its nationals living in the United States.

July                 The Germans reach el Alamein in Egypt and Sevastopol in the Soviet Crimean.

Aug.                The U.S. airforce begins bombing raids on European targets.

Sept.                German troops enter Stalingrad.

Oct.                 The British repel the German offensive at el Alamein.

Nov.                British and U.S. troops land in Morocco and Algeria; German troops retreat from Egypt and Libya to Tunisia, meanwhile occupying Vichy France. The Soviets begin their counter-attack at Stalingrad.

1943

Jan.                 The Soviets defeat the Germans at Stalingrad.

May                 German and Italian troops surrender in North Africa. July British and U.S. troops capture Sicily. Mussolini overthrown.

Sept.                Allied troops land on Italian mainland; Italy surrenders.

Oct.                 Italy declares war on Germany. The Soviets recapture Kiev.

1944

Jan.                 The Germans end their siege on Leningrad.

May                 The Soviets recapture Sevastopol.

June                Allied troops capture Rome. Under the code name “D-Day,” British and U.S. military units land in Normandy France. Germany begins V-1 bombing of Britain.

July                 A failed assassination attempt barely misses taking Hitler’s life.

Aug.                Allied forces recapture Paris. The Soviets enter Bucharest.

Sept.                The Soviets enter Yugoslavia.

Oct.                 The Soviets enter Hungary.

Nov.                The SS destroy the Auschwitz crematoria as they evacuate the former death camp.

Dec.                 The Ardennes offensive begins.

1945

Jan.                 The Soviets liberate Auschwitz, revealing to the world for the first time the full horrors of Nazi tyranny against the Jews as well as other prisoners.

March             U.S. troops capture the Rhine bridge at Remagen, while the British cross Germany’s largest river to the north. U.S. troops approach Frankfurt am Main.

April                The Soviets capture Vienna while British and U.S. troops advance east. As the Soviet army reaches the outskirts of Berlin, the German dictator Adolf Hitler commits suicide with his bride Eva Braun.

May                 The Third Reich collapses.  

top

=================================

Nature of Fascism

"Fascism Anyone?"

The following is adapted from Free Inquiry magazine, Volume 23, Number 2.

Political scientist, researcher and author Laurence W. Britt studied the following regimes to compile his 14 Characteristics of Fascism: Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Franco's Spain, Salazar's Portugal, Papadopoulos's Greece, Pinochet's Chile, and Suharto's Indonesia: (The abridged related article follows, below.)

          1. Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism. From the prominent displays of flags and bunting to the ubiquitous lapel pins, the fervor to show patriotic nationalism, both on the part of the regime itself and of citizens caught up in its frenzy, was always obvious. Catchy slogans, pride in the military, and demands for unity were common themes in expressing this nationalism. It was usually coupled with a suspicion of things foreign that often bordered on xenophobia.

          2. Disdain for the importance of human rights. The regimes themselves viewed human rights as of little value and a hindrance to realizing the objectives of the ruling elite. Through clever use of propaganda, the population was brought to accept these human rights abuses by marginalizing, even demonizing, those being targeted. When abuse was egregious, the tactic was to use secrecy, denial, and disinformation.

          3. Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause. The most significant common thread among these regimes was the use of scapegoating as a means to divert the people's attention from other problems, to shift blame for failures, and to channel frustration in controlled directions. The methods of choice-relentless propaganda and disinformation-were usually effective. Often the regimes would incite "spontaneous" acts against the target scapegoats, usually communists, socialists, liberals, Jews, ethnic and racial minorities, traditional national enemies, members of other religions, secularists, homosexuals, and "terrorists." Active opponents of these regimes were inevitably labeled as terrorists and dealt with accordingly.

          4. The supremacy of the military/avid militarism. Ruling elites always identified closely with the military and the industrial infrastructure that supported it. A disproportionate share of national resources was allocated to the military, even when domestic needs were acute. The military was seen as an expression of nationalism, and was used whenever possible to assert national goals, intimidate other nations, and increase the power and prestige of the ruling elite.

          5. Rampant sexism. Beyond the simple fact that the political elite and the national culture were male-dominated, these regimes inevitably viewed women as second-class citizens. They were adamantly anti-abortion and also homophobic. These attitudes were usually codified in Draconian laws that enjoyed strong support by the orthodox religion of the country, thus lending the regime cover for its abuses.

          6. A controlled mass media. Under some of the regimes, the mass media were under strict direct control and could be relied upon never to stray from the party line. Other regimes exercised more subtle power to ensure media orthodoxy. Methods included the control of licensing and access to resources, economic pressure, appeals to patriotism, and implied threats. The leaders of the mass media were often politically compatible with the power elite. The result was usually success in keeping the general public unaware of the regimes' excesses.

          7. Obsession with national security. Inevitably, a national security apparatus was under direct control of the ruling elite. It was usually an instrument of oppression, operating in secret and beyond any constraints. Its actions were justified under the rubric of protecting "national security," and questioning its activities was portrayed as unpatriotic or even treasonous.

          8. Religion and ruling elite tied together. Unlike communist regimes, the fascist and protofascist regimes were never proclaimed as godless by their opponents. In fact, most of the regimes attached themselves to the predominant religion of the country and chose to portray themselves as militant defenders of that religion. The fact that the ruling elite's behavior was incompatible with the precepts of the religion was generally swept under the rug. Propaganda kept up the illusion that the ruling elites were defenders of the faith and opponents of the "godless." A perception was manufactured that opposing the power elite was tantamount to an attack on religion.

          9. Power of corporations protected. Although the personal life of ordinary citizens was under strict control, the ability of large corporations to operate in relative freedom was not compromised. The ruling elite saw the corporate structure as a way to not only ensure military production (in developed states), but also as an additional means of social control. Members of the economic elite were often pampered by the political elite to ensure a continued mutuality of interests, especially in the repression of "have-not" citizens.

          10. Power of labor suppressed or eliminated. Since organized labor was seen as the one power center that could challenge the political hegemony of the ruling elite and its corporate allies, it was inevitably crushed or made powerless. The poor formed an underclass, viewed with suspicion or outright contempt. Under some regimes, being poor was considered akin to a vice.

          11. Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts. Intellectuals and the inherent freedom of ideas and expression associated with them were anathema to these regimes. Intellectual and academic freedom were considered subversive to national security and the patriotic ideal. Universities were tightly controlled; politically unreliable faculty harassed or eliminated. Unorthodox ideas or expressions of dissent were strongly attacked, silenced, or crushed. To these regimes, art and literature should serve the national interest or they had no right to exist.

          12. Obsession with crime and punishment. Most of these regimes maintained Draconian systems of criminal justice with huge prison populations. The police were often glorified and had almost unchecked power, leading to rampant abuse. "Normal" and political crime were often merged into trumped-up criminal charges and sometimes used against political opponents of the regime. Fear, and hatred, of criminals or "traitors" was often promoted among the population as an excuse for more police power.

          13. Rampant cronyism and corruption. Those in business circles and close to the power elite often used their position to enrich themselves. This corruption worked both ways; the power elite would receive financial gifts and property from the economic elite, who in turn would gain the benefit of government favoritism. Members of the power elite were in a position to obtain vast wealth from other sources as well: for example, by stealing national resources. With the national security apparatus under control and the media muzzled, this corruption was largely unconstrained and not well understood by the general population.

          14. Fraudulent elections. Elections in the form of plebiscites or public opinion polls were usually bogus. When actual elections with candidates were held, they would usually be perverted by the power elite to get the desired result. Common methods included maintaining control of the election machinery, intimidating and disenfranchising opposition voters, destroying or disallowing legal votes, and, as a last resort, turning to a judiciary beholden to the power elite.

          Free thinkers may pause as they read the above characteristics, for to them the principles of freedom and democracy seem so logical, so right, so crucial--and yet, there is one archetypal political philosophy that is anathema to almost all of these principles: It is fascism. And fascism's principles are wafting in the air today, surreptitiously masquerading as something else, challenging everything we stand for. The cliché that people and nations learn from history is not only overused, but also overestimated; often we fail to learn from history, or draw the wrong conclusions. Sadly, historical amnesia is the norm. We are two-and-a-half generations removed from the horrors of Nazi Germany, although constant reminders jog the consciousness. German and Italian fascism form the historical models that define this twisted political worldview. Although they no longer exist, this worldview and the characteristics of these models have been imitated by protofascist regimes at various times in the twentieth century. Both the original German and Italian models and the later protofascist regimes show remarkably similar characteristics. Although many scholars question any direct connection among these regimes, few can dispute their visual similarities. Beyond the visual, even a cursory study of these fascist and protofascist regimes reveals the absolutely striking convergence of their modus operandi. This, of course, is not a revelation to the informed political observer, but it is sometimes useful in the interests of perspective to restate obvious facts and in so doing shed needed light on current circumstances. In his brilliant study, Britt considers the following regimes: Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Franco's Spain, Salazar's Portugal, Papadopoulos's Greece, Pinochet's Chile, and Suharto's Indonesia. To be sure, they constitute a mixed bag of national identities, cultures, developmental levels, and history. But they all followed the fascist or protofascist model in obtaining, expanding, and maintaining power. Further, all these regimes have been overthrown, so a more or less complete picture of their basic characteristics and abuses is possible. Analysis of these seven regimes reveals fourteen common threads that link them in recognizable patterns of national behavior and abuse of power. These basic characteristics are more prevalent and intense in some regimes than in others, but they all share at least some level of similarity. (See the above-listed characteristics.)  Do any of these ring alarm bells? Of course not. After all, this is America, officially a democracy with the rule of law, a constitution, a free press, honest elections, and a well-informed public constantly being put on guard against evils. Historical comparisons like these are just exercises in verbal gymnastics. Maybe, maybe not.

References: Andrews, Kevin. Greece in the Dark. Amsterdam: Hakkert, 1980. Chabod, Frederico. A History of Italian Fascism. London: Weidenfeld, 1963. Cooper, Marc. Pinochet and Me. New York: Verso, 2001. Cornwell, John. Hitler as Pope. New York: Viking, 1999. de Figuerio, Antonio. Portugal-Fifty Years of Dictatorship. New York: Holmes & Meier, 1976. Eatwell, Roger. Fascism, A History. New York: Penguin, 1995. Fest, Joachim C. The Face of the Third Reich. New York: Pantheon, 1970. Gallo, Max. Mussolini's Italy. New York: MacMillan, 1973. Kershaw, Ian. Hitler (two volumes). New York: Norton, 1999. Laqueur, Walter. Fascism, Past, Present, and Future. New York: Oxford, 1996. Papandreau, Andreas. Democracy at Gunpoint. New York: Penguin Books, 1971. Phillips, Peter. Censored 2001: 25 Years of Censored News. New York: Seven Stories. 2001. Sharp, M.E. Indonesia Beyond Suharto. Armonk, 1999. Verdugo, Patricia. Chile, Pinochet, and the Caravan of Death. Coral Gables, Florida: North-South Center Press, 2001. Yglesias, Jose. The Franco Years. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1977.

top

=================================

War

Subject: “War gives meaning to life”

The following is the transcript of an interview in spring 2003 by PBS’ Bill Moyers of New York Times war reporter Chris Hedges. Before becoming a reporter, Chris Hedges received a divinity degree from Harvard.

Transcript: Bill Moyers Talks with Chris Hedges

MOYERS: Some weeks ago we discussed on NOW the Pentagon’s plan to attack Iraq with ‘shock and awe.’ That’s the strategy first reported by CBS News of unleashing 3,000 precision bombs and cruise missiles in the first 48 hours after President Bush gives the order.

Now the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has come forward with more details on how the strategy is expected to work. “The best way to get a short war”, he says, “is to have such a shock on the system, that the Iraqi regime would have to assume early on, that the end was inevitable.”

The General was admirably candid. Quote: “We need to condition people that this is war. People get the idea this is going to be antiseptic. Well, it’s not going to be. People are going to die.”

I read those words just after finishing this book, War is a Force that Gives Us Meaning. Its author, Chris Hedges, knows about war, knows about people dying from close up experience. As a foreign correspondent for the New York Times, Chris Hedges covered the Balkans, the Middle East, including the first Gulf War where he was captured by the Iraqis, and Central America.

Last year he was a member of the team of reporters that won the Pulitzer Prize for the New York Times coverage of global terrorism. Chris Hedges now writes the column, Public Lives. He’s also, by the way, a graduate of the Harvard Divinity School. Welcome to NOW.

HEDGES: Thank you.

MOYERS: When you hear the General describe an attack of 3,000 missiles on Iraq, what comes through your mind?

HEDGES: Well not images of shock and awe. Images of large numbers of civilian dead. Destroyed buildings. Panic in the corridors of hospitals. Families that can’t reach parts of a city that have been devastated and are desperate for news of their loved ones. All of

the images of war that I’ve seen for most of the past two decades come to mind.

MOYERS: I heard a description of ‘shock and awe’ again on National Public Radio yesterday and then they came on with a report, a first-hand report from Kurds in

Northern Iraq of how they had been tortured by Saddam Hussein. Cruelly, brutally, creatively tortured. Is there any kinship between what happens to civilians in a war like we’re about to launch and what happens to them under the regime of a Saddam Hussein? And is there any moral relativism there?

HEDGES: Well, I don’t think you can justify unleashing 3,000 precision-guided missiles in 48 hours because Saddam Hussein is a torturer, which he is. And I covered that whole withdrawal of the Iraqi forces from Northern Iraq. I was not only in the subterranean

bowels of the Secret Police Headquarters where we found not only documentation but videotapes of executions. Horrible torture centers. People being—you know where the meat hooks were still sort of fastened into the ceiling of soundproofed rooms.

And then these mass graves. We were digging up as many as a thousand, 1,500 people. But that does not give you a moral justification to carry out what is, quite candidly, indiscriminate attack against civilians. That’s what’s going to happen when you drop this number of high explosive devices in an urban area.

MOYERS: Does the inevitability of civilian casualties make this war illegitimate?

HEDGES: Well, I think the war is illegitimate not because civilians will die. Civilians die in every conflict. It’s illegitimate because the administration has not, to my mind, provided any evidence of any credible threat. And we can’t go to war just because we think somebody might do something eventually.

There has to be hard intelligence. There has to be a real threat if we’re going to ask our young men and women to die. Because once you unleash the "dogs of war" and I know this from every war I've ever covered, war has a force of its own. It's not surgical. We talk about taking out Saddam Hussein. Once you use the blunt instrument of war, it has all sorts of consequences when you use violence on that scale that you can't anticipate. I'm not opposed to the use of force. But force is always has to be a last resort because those who wield force become tainted or contaminated by it. And one of the things that most frightens me about the moment our nation is in now, is that we've lost touch with the notion of what war is.

At the end of the Vietnam War, we became a better country in our defeat. We asked questions about ourselves that we had not asked before. We were humbled, maybe even humiliated. We were forced to step outside of ourselves and look at us as others saw us. And it wasn’t a pretty sight.

But we became a better country for it. A much better country. Gradually war’s good name if we can, between quotes, can say was resurrected. Certainly during the Reagan Era. Granada, Panama. Culminating with the Persian Gulf War, where a war—the very essence of war was hidden from us. And the essence of war is death. War is necrophilia. That’s what it is.

MOYERS: Tell me, having covered the first Gulf War, what the men and women who are about to go into Iraq are going to experience.

HEDGES: Well, the ones who are up on the front line are—especially as they prepare to go into battle—are going to have to come face-to-face with the myth of war. The myth of heroism, the myth of patriotism. The myth of glory. All those myths that have the ability to arouse us when we’re not in mortal danger.

And they’re going to have to confront their own mortality. And at that moment some people will be crying, some people will be vomiting. People will not speak much. Everyone will realize that from here on out, at least until the fighting ends, it will be a constant minute-by-minute battle with fear. And that sometimes fear wins. And anybody who tells you differently has never been in a war.

MOYERS: And yet you say in your book that the first Gulf War, that we made war fun.

HEDGES: For those who weren’t there. You know the—I was with the U.S. Marine Corps and they hated CNN. They hated that flag-waving jingoism that dominated the coverage on, or dominated so much of the coverage...all those abstract terms that create the excitement back home become obscene to those who are in combat.

MOYERS: You say also in the book that the first Gulf War made war more fashionable again.

HEDGES: Right.

MOYERS: What do you mean by that?

HEDGES: Well, it was, you know, so much of commercial news has now become an extension of the entertainment industry. And the war became entertainment. The Army had no more candor than they did in Vietnam. But what they perfected was the appearance of candor. Live press conferences. And well-packaged video clips of

Sidewinder missiles hitting planes or going down chimneys. You know, this kind of stuff.

It’s the fact that they covered up death. Not only the death of our own. But the death of tens of thousands of Iraqis who were killed. They were nameless, faceless phantoms. When we the victims, if you watch the news reports carefully, were our young men who were out in the desert having to sort of bathe out of a bucket and eat MRE’s.

So it was completely mythic, or mendacious narrative that was presented to us. And I was a little delayed getting back to New York because I was a prisoner with the Iraqi Republican Guard. But I remember landing into New York and even then the mood was that we’d just won the Super Bowl.

And it frightened me and it disgusted me. And it wasn’t because I didn’t believe that we shouldn’t have gone into Kuwait. I believe we had no choice. But I certainly understood that we, as a nation, had completely lost touch with what war is. And when we lose touch with what war is, when we believe that our technology makes us invulnerable. That we can wage war and others can die and we won’t—then eventually, if history is any guide, we are going to stumble into a horrific swamp.

MOYERS: I read your book last night. One of the most chilling and haunting scenes in here is when, I think you were in El Salvador, and a young man was near you, calling out, “mama.”

HEDGES: Yeah.

MOYERS: “Mama.”

HEDGES: It’s not uncommon when soldiers die that they call out for their mother. And that always seems to me to cut through the absurd posturing of soldiering.

MOYERS: Three times when you were in El Salvador you were threatened with death. You received death threats. The Embassy got you out.

HEDGES: That’s right.

MOYERS: You went back.

HEDGES: Yes. Because I believe that it was better to live for one intense and overpowering moment, even if it meant my own death, rather than go back to the routine of life.

MOYERS: You’re right, you know. War is an addiction, as you say. Let me read you this: “during a lull I dashed...” this is you.

HEDGES: Right.

MOYERS: Read this for me.

HEDGES: “During a lull I dashed across an empty square and found shelter behind a house. My heart was racing. Adrenaline coursed through my bloodstream. I was safe.

I made it back to the capital. And like most war correspondents, I soon considered the experience a great cosmic joke. I drank away the fear and excitement in a seedy bar in downtown San Salvador. Most people, after such an experience, would learn to stay away. I was hooked.”

MOYERS: You were hooked on…?

HEDGES: War. On the most powerful narcotic invented by humankind is war.

MOYERS: What is the narcotic? What is it that’s the poisonous allure?

HEDGES: Well the Bible calls it, “The lust of the eye.” And warns believers against it. It’s that great landscape of the grotesque. It’s that power to destroy.

I mean one of the most chilling things you learn in war is that human beings like to destroy. Not only other things but other human beings. And when unit discipline would break down or there was no unit discipline to begin with, you would go into a town and people’s eyes were glazed over. They sputtered gibberish.

Houses were burning. They had that power to revoke the charter. That divine-like power, to revoke the charter of another human being’s place on this planet. And they used it.

MOYERS: I would have thought that being captured and held by the Iraqis as you were, would have cured you of your addiction. But yet it didn’t.

HEDGES: No.

MOYERS: So I still don’t understand it. I have to be honest. I mean I just don’t understand why you keep putting yourself back into that which you hate.

HEDGES: Well, because the experience itself, that adrenaline-driven rush of war. That sense that you know we have a vital mission that, as journalists, that we ennoble ourselves. I mean I think one of the things I tried very hard to do in the book was show the dark side of what we do.

I mean I admire the courage and the integrity of many of the men and women I worked with, but I do think there is a very dark side to what we do. And it becomes very hard to live outside of a war zone. It’s why this small—my comrades, these groups of war correspondents and photographers—would leap from war-to-war.

It’s no accident that I was covering the war in Kosovo with people I had covered the war with in El Salvador two decades earlier. You go out of Sarajevo and be in a hotel in Paris and would be pacing the halls because you couldn’t adjust. When you stepped outside war it’s literally as if you sort of see the world around you from the end of a long tunnel.

And I often would feel that I was physically here but I was really sort of four paces behind. You’re incredibly disconnected from the world around you. And if you spend long enough in war, it’s finally the only place that you can feel at home. And that’s, of course, a sickness. But I had it.

MOYERS: But doesn’t it also create a sense of camaraderie among men who are fighting it. What happens then?

HEDGES: Comradeship is something that’s attainable. Everyone can attain in wartime. Once you have that external threat. I mean I think we felt this a little bit after 9-11. We no longer faced death alone. We faced death as a group.

And for that reason it becomes easier to bear.

MOYERS: How do you explain the phenomenon that while we venerate and mourn our own dead from say 9-11, we’re curiously indifferent about those we’re about to kill.

HEDGES: Because we dehumanize the Other. We fail to recognize the divinity of all human life. We- our own victims are the only victims that hold worth. The victims of the Other are sort of the regrettable cost of war. There is such a moral dichotomy in war. Such a frightening dichotomy that the world becomes a tableau of black and white, good and evil.

You see this in the rhetoric of the Bush Administration. They are the barbarians. I mean we begin to mirror them. You know for them we’re the infidels and we call them the barbarians.

MOYERS: It happened in the Johnson Administration too. The President spoke of bringing the coonskin home.

HEDGES: Right. But that’s because war is the same disease. And that’s the point of the book is that it doesn’t matter if I’m an Argentine or El Salvador or the occupied territories or Iraq. It’s all the same sickness.

MOYERS: The world is sick too, this is a savage world, as we keep being reminded...

You do think that United States faces a threat? A threat from whatever we want to call it? That produced 9/11? You think we are at danger?

HEDGES: Yes. But not from Iraq.

MOYERS: So how do we, taking into account the moral issues that you raise...

HEDGES: Right.

MOYERS: How do we protect ourselves, defend our security, do the right thing and yet not be taken by surprise again?

HEDGES: By having the courage to be vulnerable. By not folding in on ourselves. By not becoming like those who are arrayed against us. By not using their rhetoric and not adopting their worldview.

What we did after 9/11 was glorify ourselves, denigrate the others. We’re certainly, now at this moment, denigrating the French and the Germans who, after all, are our allies. And we created this global troika with Vladimir Putin and Ariel Sharon.

One fifth of the world’s population, most of whom are not Arabs, look at us through the prism of Chechnya and Palestine. And yes, we certainly have to hunt down Osama bin Laden. I would like to see those who carried out 9/11, in so far as it is possible, go on trial for the crimes against humanity that they committed. But we must also begin to address the roots of that legitimate rage and anger that is against us.

It has to be a twofold battle. We are not going to stop terrorism through violence. You see that in Israel. In some ways, the best friend Hamas has is Ariel Sharon, because every time the Israelis send warplanes to bomb a refugee camp or tanks into Ramallah, it weakens and destroys that moderate center within the Palestinian community.

And essentially creates two apocalyptic visions. One on the extreme right wing of Israeli politics. And certainly one on the extreme wing of the Palestinian community.             And when these apocalyptic visionaries move to the center of society, then the world becomes exceedingly dangerous. And that’s what I fear. And that’s what- and, but that requires us not to resort, which is a natural kind of reaction, a kind of almost knee-jerk reaction, to the use of force when force is used against us.

MOYERS: So is it enough in this kind of world just to be good?

HEDGES: Well, nobody’s good. I mean we’re all sinners and God loves us anyway. That’s the whole point. And we live in a fallen world and it’s never between the choice is never between good and evil.

The choice... or moral and immoral, as Reinhold Niebuhr reminds us. The choice is always between immoral and more immoral. And I don’t think...

MOYERS: I don’t think Americans feel immoral about what happened to them on 9/11. Or...

HEDGES: Well, nor should they.

MOYERS: Nor when listening to the report of Saddam Hussein’s torture of his own people. That I don’t think they feel the same way as they think he feels.

HEDGES: Well, he’s a tyrant. And you know we... 9/11 is not the issue. The issue is once we unleash force of that magnitude. And I think theologians like Niebuhr would argue that we must do so and ask for forgiveness.

That we, you know, when you make a choice in the world, and of course one always has to, one has to remember that there are consequences for that choice that create injustice and tragedy for others. And that’s what is important to always remember and be aware of.

I think you go back and read Abraham Lincoln and he was very aware of this. And that’s what made him a great leader. And in many ways a great moral philosopher.

MOYERS: Can people who plan wars, presidents and generals, afford to be influenced by people like you who abhor war? Who anguish over war?

HEDGES: Well, I think any soldier that’s been through combat hates war in the way that only somebody who’s seen war can. It’s those that lose touch with war and find it euphoric that frighten me.

MOYERS: But doesn’t power exercised with ruthlessness always win?

HEDGES: Power exercised with ruthlessness always is able to crush the gentle and the compassionate. But I don’t believe it always wins. Thucydides wrote about the war with Sparta that, yes, raw Spartan militarism in the short-term could conquer Athens. But that

beauty, art, knowledge, philosophy, would long outlive Sparta and Spartan militarism.

And he consoled himself with that. I think in the short-term, yes, violence and force can win. But in the long-term, it leaves nothing but hollowness, emptiness. It does nothing to enrich our lives or propel us forward as human beings.

MOYERS: What would you like most as—what would you most like us to be thinking about this weekend as it looks as if war is about to happen?

HEDGES: That this isn’t just about the destruction of Iraq and the death of Iraqis. It’s about self-destruction.

MOYERS: How so? What’s happening to us?

HEDGES: Our whole civil society is being torn apart. Once again, as is true in every war, the media parrots back the clichés and jingos of the state. Imbibes and promotes the myth. In wartime, the press is always part of the problem.

And that we are about to engage in that ecstatic, exciting, narcotic that is war. And that if we don’t get a grasp on the poison that war is, then that poison can ultimately kill us just as surely as the disease.

MOYERS: What have you learned as a journalist covering war that we ought to know on the eve of this attack on Iraq?

HEDGES: That everybody or every generation seems to have- seems not to listen to those who went through it before and bore witness to it. But falls again for the myth. And has to learn it through a tragedy inflicted upon their young.

That war is always about betrayal. It’s about betrayal of soldiers by politicians. And it’s about betrayal of the young by the old.

MOYERS: I believe that George W. Bush tonight as you and I talk is convinced he’s about to do good. A necessary act that he thinks is making a moral claim in the world. Do you believe that?

HEDGES: I believe that he feels that. But I think anybody who believes that they understand the will of God and can act as an agent for God is dangerous.

MOYERS: If the New York Times asked you to go cover the war in the next month, would you go?

HEDGES: No. No, I’m finished.

MOYERS: The book is War is a Force that Gives Us Meaning, by Chris Hedges. Thank you for being with us.  

top

=================================

The Silencing of Dissent on Graduation Day

by Amy Goodman and Chris Hedges, on Democracy Now!

May 22, 2003

Transcript of 21 May 2003 interview on the national listener-sponsored radio and television show “Democracy Now!”

“Speaker disrupts RC graduation”—this is the headline in the Rockford Register Star in Illinois. The article describes how commencement speaker Chris Hedges was booed off the stage for making an anti-war speech at the Rockford College graduation on Saturday. The paper reports that two days later, graduates and family members are “still reeling.” They had envisioned a “go out and make your mark send-off.” Hedges is a Pulitzer Prize-winning New York Times reporter and veteran war correspondent who has reported from war-torn countries for 15 years. He is also the author of the acclaimed War Is A Force That Gives Us Meaning.

But Rockford College officials pulled the plug on his microphone three minutes after he began to speak. The college president told Hedges to wrap it up, and he resumed his speech to the sound of boos and foghorns. Some graduates and audience members turned their backs to Hedges. Others rushed up the aisle to protest the remarks; one student tossed his cap and gown to the stage before leaving.

Chris Hedges joined Democracy Now! in our studio on May 21, 2003 to speak with host Amy Goodman about what happened.

AMY GOODMAN: Just tell us what happened this weekend. Why did you go to Rockford College in Illinois?

CHRIS HEDGES: I was invited to give the commencement address. Given that the book is an explication of war and the poison that war is and what it does to individuals and societies and that since the book came out I have spoken extensively about that, that is, of course, what I was prepared to speak about when I got to Rockford. What I was not prepared for was the response. I have certainly spoken at events where people disagreed—that is to be expected. But to be silenced and to have people clamber onto the platform with the threat of physical violence was something new, and frightening.

AG: Did the police actually have to take you off?

CH: People had to be escorted. I was trying to read the speech so I wasn’t sort of watching what was going around me but I believe about three students managed to get on the platform, they had to be escorted off. And then as the diplomas were being handed out, campus security took me off campus. I left before the graduation ceremony was concluded.

AG: And what was the response of other officials on the stage?

CH: I think all of us were surprised at how vociferous the reaction was and how angry people were. It began almost before I said anything and I think you’ll hear that in the tape. I really didn’t manage to get much out before significant sectors of the crowd began to drown me out and made it very hard for anyone, I think, in the audience to hear what I was saying. So I really didn’t have much of a chance to say anything.

AG: You decided to continue the speech though, from beginning to end.

CH: The speech was longer than it was, it should have been a little longer, it was cut short. But I was determined not to let them determine when I would finish speaking and I think the college president felt the same way. At the same time he didn’t want it to go on for another hour. But he didn’t want to let the crowd determine that it was over, but I didn’t finish, no.

AG: The mic was pulled twice? Was cut off?

CH: Right.

AG: Who cut it?

CH: I don’t know. I don’t know who cut it. It was probably cut at the source because I didn’t see any activity around the podium.

AG: We’re talking to Chris Hedges, we’re going to go to break. When we come back we’ll hear the address that he gave at the graduation of Rockford College students this past weekend.

BROADCAST OF CHRIS HEDGES' SPEECH

AG: I’m Amy Goodman with Chris Hedges, the commencement speaker at the Rockford College graduation this past Saturday in Illinois. I’m looking at the Rockford Register Star, the latest report out of there, as it says: “The Rockford College family debated what went wrong at its Spring graduation ceremony that featured New York Times reporter and anti-war advocate Chris Hedges. When do people listen to ideas? When do people think critically and disagree? When do people sit respectfully and is there a time for civility to be lost? These and more questions discussed at a meeting on the campus, the Alma Mater of Jane Addams. Students, faculty and staff didn’t reach a consensus, but college President Paul Pribbenow maintains students should be challenged by commencement speakers. He said, ‘commencement is one of the last moments you have with students. I want commencement to be more than just a pop speech.’ Well, Chris Hedges, you went to Jane Addams’ school, to Rockford College. Who was Jane Addams?

Well, she was one of the great moral and intellectual figures of the 20th Century. She founded Hull House, which was for immigrants – this was sort of before the state got involved in social welfare and she did amazing things like gather immigrants at Hull House – they produced the first production of Sophocles’ Ajax. She was just a remarkable figure, a remarkable intellect and a pacifist who won the Nobel Prize for Peace and spoke out against World War I, against American entry into the war and she was booed off the stage, for instance, at Carnegie Hall. So all I knew about Rockford College was this titanic figure in American intellectual thought and one of the great sort of, moral leaders of our country. So, to be shouted down at her Alma Mater – there’s a very sad kind of irony to that, of course.

So you were taken off by security?

CH: Well yeah. I think what was so disturbing was that the crowd wasn’t just angry, but there was that undercurrent or possibility of violence. The fact that people actually stormed up past those to get onto the podium and there was a feeling that it was better to have me removed from the ceremony before the conclusion, before the awarding of the diplomas. So the campus security sort of hustled me out as they were handing out the diplomas.

AG: I wonder if Jane Addams was treated in the same way when she was booed off the stage. Jane Addams who, in addition to be the founder of Hull House in Chicago, was the first international President of WILPF, the Women’s International League of Peace and Freedom and won the Nobel Peace Prize.

CH: Yeah, she was a great figure and if I take any comfort it’s that she would have not only understood but I believe probably applauded.

AG: And so, let’s talk about the conclusions you’ve arrived at that you’ve shared with the students. Did anyone come up to you afterwards to talk about why they had responded and did you have a sense that it was a majority or just a vocal minority?

CH: I don’t think it was a majority, but it was a significant minority, I mean, large enough that they disrupted the commencement exercises. No, no one could really... a few people or two, I believe it was all sort of a rush, as I was escorted to leave I think two students just came up to me to say thank you. But I wasn’t really able to talk to students afterwards.

AG: Which you had originally planned to do?

CH: Yes. I certainly didn’t plan to leave immediately.

AG: You are the author of War Is A Force That Gives Us Meaning. You have reported from many war zones, you’ve been in Guatemala, you’ve been in El Salvador, you’ve been in Bosnia, you were in the Iraq during the Persian Gulf War, you were held by Iraqi Republican Guard. Can you talk about some of those experiences?

CH: You know, as I looked out on the crowd, that is exactly what my book is about. It is about the suspension of individual conscience, and probably consciousness, for the contagion of the crowd for that euphoria that comes with patriotism. The tragedy is that—and I’ve seen it in conflict after conflict or society after society that plunges into war—with that kind of rabid nationalism comes racism and intolerance and a dehumanization of the other. And it’s an emotional response. People find a kind of ecstasy, a kind of belonging, a kind of obliteration of their alienation in that patriotic fervor that always does come in war time.

As I gave my talk and I looked out on the crowd, I was essentially witnessing things that I had witnessed in the Plaza de Mayo in Argentina or in squares in Belgrade or anywhere else. Crowds, especially crowds that become hunting packs are very frightening. People chanted the kind of cliches and aphorisms and jingoes that are handed to you by the state. “God Bless America” or people were chanting “send him to France” —this kind of stuff and that kind of contagion leads ultimately to tyranny, it’s very dangerous and it has to be stopped.

I’ve seen it in effect and take over countries. But of course, it breaks my heart when I see it in my country. That’s essentially what I was looking at was in some ways a mirror of what I was trying to speak about. And I think I managed to touch upon it somewhat when I talked upon this notion of comradeship as a suppression of self awareness and self-possession to sort of follow along, locked in the embrace of a nation, or of a group, or of a national group unthinkingly, blindly. And there is a kind of undeniable euphoria in that. And that’s what I was looking at.

I mean this was a visceral and an emotional reaction. Nobody really spent much time, or I didn’t have much time to begin to explain the thoughts that I was getting across. And, of course, it was interpreted as anti-military, which it is not. I mean, what I write about in the book and what I speak about is about war: how war is used as an instrument, the danger of war, why war should always be a last resort. What happens when we wage war without justifiable cause. What happens to ourselves? What happens to others? I mean this is the currency of the book and something I’m sort of ringing the alarm bells against. And there was a kind of symbiotic relationship between everything that I’ve experienced and everything that was happening in that crowd.

AG: What has been the response of your newspaper, The New York Times?

CH: Well, they’re looking into whether I breached the protocol in terms of my very pointed statements about the Iraqi War. I mean, that’s something that makes them uncomfortable. I don’t think they have a problem with the book, because the book talks more generically about what war does to societies although it certainly does mention what it has done to us since 9/11. So that’s something that they’re looking at.

AG: What pressures do you face? The New York Times, in their reporting of the invasion, like many other papers you don’t have to single them out, including television news, are very much beating the drums for war. You take a very different stance.

CH: Well up until now, I haven’t faced any pressure at all and I have spoken before. But because of the anger that this talk elicited, I think there’s been more attention to the kinds of things that I’ve said. So one of the pressures I face is the proliferation of hate phone calls and hate emails. Which I had had periodically, but of course now I have daily.

AG: We’ll continue to follow what happens in this. The right-wing media has certainly picked this up.

CH: Right.

AG: What’s happening? Are you getting a lot of calls?

CH: Yeah, well I don’t do trash talk radio. I didn’t before and I’m not going to start now. And since I don’t own a television I’m sort of spared being inflicted with this stuff.

AG: And you’ve written a new book?

CH: Yes I have. It’s called What Every Person Should Know About War. It’s really in some ways geared towards those 17- and 18-year-old kids who believe the myth of war. I think both books are an attempt to demythologize war and explain war as it is. The army has studies at length what war does to individuals, how to create more efficient killers and it goes through and answers a lot of those questions, that if they get asked, often don’t get answered.

The text of Chris Hedges’ commencement address can be found at the Rockford Register.

  =================================

Related Quotes
 

" The news and truth are not the same thing. " -Walter Lippmann, American journalist, 1889-1974

"The corporate grip on opinion in the United States is one of the wonders of the Western world. No First World country has ever managed to eliminate so entirely from its media all objectivity - much less dissent." -Gore Vidal, novelist and critic

"In many respects, we now live in a society that is only formally democratic, as the great mass of citizens have minimal say on the major public issues of the day, and such issues are scarcely debated at all in any meaningful sense in the electoral arena. In our society, corporations and the wealthy enjoy a power every bit as immense as that assumed to have been enjoyed by the lords and royalty of feudal times." -Robert W. McChesney, media critic and author

"The most esteemed journalists are precisely the most servile. For it is by making themselves useful to the powerful that they gain access to the 'best' sources." -Walter Karp, Harpers magazine

"By the end of the millennium five men controlled the world's media. And the people rejoiced, because their TVs told them to." -Michael Moore

"The timidity of Congress in challenging administration big lies ... rises in no small part from the fear of contradiction and criticism from the powerful establishment media, whose interests all too frequently parallel those of the administration. " -Peter Dale Scott, Cocaine Politics

"Terrorism has replaced Communism as the rationale for the militarization of the country, for military adventures abroad, and for the suppression of civil liberties at home. It serves the same purpose, serving to create hysteria." -Howard Zinn

top