Conservative Supreme Court puts corporations ahead of citizens
Nathan Bedford Forrest
allowing corporations and labor unions to give unlimited amounts of
money to political campaigns is a good thing for America?
Who hear believes that this does not allow corporations and labor unions
an undemocratic advantage in the political process and takes power away
from the individual and puts it into the hands of moneyed interests?
Where is the outrage?
Where are the Tea Baggers??
None4U
"Nathan Bedford Forrest" <NBF@H�TMAIL.COM> wrote in message
news:hjg2v2$8gj$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Hilary Clinton created this mess. She set us back 100 yeatrs. Too bad for
you..
Nathan Bedford Forrest
I didn't realize that Hillary had a vote on the current conservative
Supreme Court.
None4U
Throw some spin on it loser. The facts are in your face and you got nothing
to say about it.
She started the case , moron. Because she didnt like what a movie said
abouit her. It should of never been there.
Activist Court Overturns Century-Old Campaign Finance Law
Posted at 2:11 PM by Chase Foster
In a 5-4 decision issued this morning, the U.S. Supreme Court radically
altered campaign finance law, obliterating the long-held distinction between
spending by individuals and spending by corporations.
The case, Citizens United v. FEC, dealt with a challenge to an FEC ruling
barring the airing of an anti-Hillary Clinton documentary during the 2008
primary elections. The lower court had said the McCain-Feingold law of 2002
prohibited the planned broadcasts because they would be aired during the 30
day period before a presidential primary and were paid for with corporate
money.
The Supreme Court was faced with determining whether the lower court's
ruling was Constitutional. They were originally expected to rule narrowly on
the particular merits and circumstances of this unusual case, but instead,
the Court issued a sweeping and expansive ruling that undermines 100 years
of precedent and law.
Here's how the Campaign Legal Center describes it:
Today's decision from the Supreme Court is an extreme example of judicial
overreach that arbitrarily overturns decades of precedent and undercuts the
powers of the legislative branch. What the Supreme Court majority did today
was empower corporations to use their enormous wealth and urge the election
or defeat of federal candidates, and in doing so, buy even more power over
the legislative process and government decision making. As a result of this
decision, for profit corporations and industries will be able to threaten
members of Congress with negative ads if they vote against corporate
interests, and to spend tens of millions on campaign ads to "punish" those
who do not knuckle under to their lobbying threats.
Experts predict that this ruling will not only have implications for federal
campaign finance law, but will require a change in North Carolina law as
well. They also predict that this could be one more step in the court's
march toward a place where traditional campaign finance regulations are
rendered meaningless. In four other cases since Roberts became Chief
Justice, the Court has circumscribed campaign finance law, and there is no
reason to think they will stop now.
Given this context, the only viable reform option is to create a
comprehensive system of public campaign financing that encourages small
donor giving and allows candidates to run special interest free. The small
donor incentives and competitive funding stream present in most Voter-Owned,
public financing systems would give candidates the capacity to compete with
outside corporate money in a post-Citizens United fundraising world. And
since public campaign financing is voluntary, it should not face any
Constitutional troubles, even from an activist right-wing Court.
If one good thing can come out of today's decision, it would be a new
realization at the federal, state, and local levels, that fundamental
campaign reform is needed to safeguard our democracy. By enacting public
campaign financing systems, our leaders can create a way out of the campaign
money chase and set our system of government up to withstand the worst of
the damage that today's ruling will bring.
Nathan Bedford Forrest
> "Nathan Bedford Forrest" <NBF@H®TMAIL.COM> wrote in message
> news:hjg4bo$t95$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> None4U wrote:
>> "Nathan Bedford Forrest" <NBF@H®TMAIL.COM> wrote in message
>> news:hjg2v2$8gj$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> Who reading this honestly believes that the Supreme Court decision
>>> allowing corporations and labor unions to give unlimited amounts of
>>> money to political campaigns is a good thing for America?
>>>
>>> Who hear believes that this does not allow corporations and labor unions
>>> an undemocratic advantage in the political process and takes power away
>>> from the individual and puts it into the hands of moneyed interests?
>>>
>>> Where is the outrage?
>>>
>>> Where are the Tea Baggers??
>>
>>
>> Hilary Clinton created this mess. She set us back 100 yeatrs. Too bad for
>> you..
>
> I didn't realize that Hillary had a vote on the current conservative
> Supreme Court.
>
>
> Throw some spin on it loser.
It doesn't need spin.
It was a Supreme Court decision that gave corporations the right to use
unlimited amounts of money to promote political campaigns, not anything
Hillary did.
Too bad yer too fucking stupid to realize that, but thanks fer letting
us all see it.
None4U
Hilary did everything. She started the case. First fuckup. Second fuck up
is arguing about how the movie was paid for thinking it wouldnt matter.
Third fuckup. Is thinking they wouldnt apply the same laws to Corporations
she was bitching about. Uh gee, we didnt think that would happen , Duh....
Now you know what. You asshats need money now. You got to get it from the
people your fucking over. Good luck with dat..,
Too bad yer too fucking stupid to realize that, but thanks fer letting
us all see it.
Your too stupid to accept facts. So you keep deleting them..
So here they are again.
Nathan Bedford Forrest
> You think the media companies feeding you the news aren't special interests?
> You think government has the right to demonize corporations without
> the corporations having the right to respond?
> You think corporations aren't groups of people with the inherent right
> to political discourse?
> Here's where the tea partiers are on the side of free speech!
> The tea baggers (All of which are in the lefts pocket as it is a gay
> S/M/domination ritual) are with you little Marxists
> in destroying the Bill of Rights for your political agenda of control
> and economic slavery
And there we have it, folks... Tea Baggers come down on the side of the
rights of corporations against the rights of individuals. As Benito
Mussolini, the father of modern fascism, put it, "Fascism should more
properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and
corporate power."
And don't forget this one:
"Fascism is definitely and absolutely opposed to the doctrines of
liberalism, both in the political and economic sphere."
None4U
Fascism is Socialism.
And don't forget this one:
"Fascism is definitely and absolutely opposed to the doctrines of
liberalism, both in the political and economic sphere."
No quote i see , but Fascism is Socialism.
Nathan Bedford Forrest
Yes, I *do* know what.
It was a Supreme Court decision that gave corporations the right to use
unlimited amounts of money to promote political campaigns, not anything
Hillary did.
You seem to be having a hard time accepting this obvious fact.
S'matter?
Too painful?
None4U
Here we have what??? You wrote it, loser. You dont have anything but your
swewing hate towards independnt voters who are voting out those that
deserve to be voted out.,
Tea Baggers come down on the side of the
rights of corporations against the rights of individuals.
As Benito
Mussolini, the father of modern fascism, put it, "Fascism should more
properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and
corporate power."
UMMM, thats Socialism, asshat..
And don't forget this one:
"Fascism is definitely and absolutely opposed to the doctrines of
liberalism, both in the political and economic sphere."
No quote, but thats Socialism again.
Nathan Bedford Forrest
Well, seeing that I have already establish the fact that you are a
delusional paranoid who believes that Hillary Clinton granted
corporations the right to use unlimited amounts of money to promote
political campaigns, and not the Supreme Court, anything else you choose
to prattle on about is can be considered equally absurd.
But keep trying.
Nickname unavailable
they are the same idiots that were rioting and shilling for the fat
cat insurance companies. so do not expect much from those empty heads:)
Nickname unavailable
hillary had nothing to do with it. they did not even bother with her
case. the interventionist activists conservative judges used hillary
as a excuse, to undue over 100 years of law and supreme court
decision, to institute fascism.
even fortune magazine is uneasy with the conservative supreme courts
fascist ruling:corporations are not people:In this case the Court went
far out of its way to address a question nobody had asked and to
create a constitutional right where none is indicated
The Supreme Court's gift to big business
By David A. Kaplan, contributor , On Friday January 22, 2010, 11:35 am
EST
So much for the demise of corporate America, at least in the popular
imagination. Just a little while ago, we were petrified about the auto
companies in Detroit and the larger manufacturing infrastructure. Wall
Street behemoths like Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns were crushed.
AIG was saved only by Uncle Sam. Even the iconic Goldman Sachs, today
riding high with record profits of $13.4 billion for 2009, needed a
temporary bailout. The president acted, Congress enacted emergency
legislation, crises were stemmed. Now, though, comes the U.S. Supreme
Court to rescue corporations not from financial ruin but from laws
barring them from swaying elections. Who knew this was such a problem?
Yesterday, the justices issued one of their most important business
decisions in decades. Overturning two prior cases and undoing a
century of First Amendment doctrine, a monumentally divided court
ruled that corporations, well, are just like people, too. No longer
can those corporations be banned by Congress from spending whatever
they wanted on advertisements on political candidates. Money is like
speech. Since you can pretty much say what you want, you can pretty
much spend what you want on ads or paid documentaries or any other
broadcast vehicle.
"The censorship we now confront is vast in its reach," wrote Justice
Anthony Kennedy for a 5-to-4 majority in Citizens United v. Federal
Election Commission. "If the First Amendment has any force, it
prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of
citizens, for simply engaging in political speech." All of the Court's
conservatives voted in the majority, all the liberals in dissent. Come
the midterm elections in November, expect even more campaign ads --
and this time from companies, labor unions, and any other organization
with millions to spend on behalf of a candidate. It's enough to make
you long for more Jay Leno at 10. "The court's ruling threatens to
undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the nation,"
Justice John Paul Stevens correctly wrote in dissent.
I will admit to a certain squeamishness over attacking a ruling that
seems to rest on free-speech principles. Those of us who usually plead
guilty to being First Amendment absolutists -- after all, the easy-to-
read constitutional provision does say, "Congress shall make no law"
that abridges freedom of speech -- argue that the remedy to expression
we disagree with is more expression. Thus, while we deplore the
hateful things that Nazis and Ku Klux Klanners say, we maintain the
First Amendment prohibits banning that speech and that the better
course is to speak out ourselves more robustly. In that way, no
government bureaucrat or censor gets the power to determine what
speech is good and what speech is bad, and instead the "marketplace of
ideas" decides which ideas win out. So, the argument goes, if you
don't like want Exxon says in its ad this November for Congressman
Pete Polluter, put on your own ad for Hybrid Hank.
Like most theory, it sounds great. And there is something appealing
about apparent consistency: If, say, The New York Times get to endorse
candidates or choose whom to give publicity to, why shouldn't Hallmark
Cards get the privilege of influencing an electoral outcome? But like
much theory, it doesn't work out as well. The fact is, special-
interests groups --through lobbying, soft money, and legal direct
contributions to candidates -- already exercise huge influence on
elections. You can't prove that observation, yet there is widespread
agreement among both Republicans and Democrats that the way we finance
American campaigns is an abomination -- and that if voices are missing
from the marketplace, they are of individuals rather than groups like
corporations.
It is within that context that Congress has passed bipartisan
legislation dating to the Gilded Age that has curbed corporate
spending in the political arena. And since corporations are merely
creatures of legislation -- established only to make money for
shareholders rather than to be deep-pocketed actors in electoral
politics -- it then follows that legislators can regulate
corporations, including on matters relating to speech. That's
especially so when the individual shareholders in a company retain
their full individual right to speak in the arena, including
purchasing ads and all the rest. Even when the interests of
corporations aren't at stake, First Amendment protections have never
been absolute. We draw lines all the time -- most importantly on
libel. If you carelessly defame someone in private life, you pay
damages. If you defame a public official or someone in public life,
you probably win, because the victim has to show you were reckless or
worse; nonetheless, the risk of losing -- and the certainty of ruinous
legal fees -- casts a chill in newsrooms and editors self-censor
anyway. In short, the First Amendment has limits.
While some companies and unions have chafed at the spending
regulations, it's typically been at the margins. Last spring, as the
Supreme Court took up the case, the issues were narrow. Citizens
United, a conservative nonprofit, had produced "Hillary: The Movie," a
90-minute screed released during the Democratic presidential primaries
in 2008. Enforcing a federal law, lower courts said the movie was akin
to a long political ad and couldn't be shown on local cable systems
too close to primary dates. When the dispute first reached the Supreme
Court, the questions were confined to whether federal law included
documentaries and video-on-demand. But the justices declined to be
constrained by those questions and took the rare step of asking that
the case be reargued this term, explaining that they were now
interested in bigger game -- whether restrictions on corporations were
entirely unconstitutional.
The Court makes its own rules. It chooses which appeals to hear from
the thousands brought to it a year (it takes fewer than a hundred). It
decides what the relevant questions are. In this case the Court went
far out of its way to address a question nobody had asked -- and to
create a constitutional right where none is indicated. "Essentially,"
Justice Stevens noted, "five justices were unhappy with the limited
nature of the case before us, so they changed the case to give
themselves an opportunity to change the law." When liberals do such a
thing -- and they did so repeatedly in the 1960s and '70s on issues
like abortion -- conservatives hollered "judicial activism!" When
conservatives do it now, they squeal about "vindicating constitutional
rights." By any other name, that's hypocrisy -- and it allows the
public to cynically conclude the court is just another political
branch of government, except one that's unelected and unaccountable.
We live in complicated enough times, when distrust of the president
and members of Congress is widespread. The Court ought to be the
branch we believe is neutral and does indeed operate, as Chief Justice
John Roberts disingenuously preached during his confirmation hearings,
as "an umpire calling balls and strikes." Instead, just as Roe v. Wade
overreached years ago, and just as Bush v. Gore did in 2001, the Court
in Citizens United has inflicted another grievous wound unto itself.
David A. Kaplan, a contributing editor for Fortune, once practiced law
on Wall Street and now teaches journalism and law at New York
University. His book on Bush v. Gore, "The Accidental President," was
the basis for "Recount," the 2008 HBO docudrama about the Florida
recount. You can reach him at david....@fortunemail1.com.
Nathan Bedford Forrest
Here we have the fact that, in Reality Land, the US Supreme Court ruled
5-4 in favor of allowing corporations the right to use unlimited amounts
of money to promote political campaigns.
And here we also have the fact that Hillary Clinton, despite yer
obsessive denial, had absolutely nothing to do with this decision.
Nickname unavailable
you are correct,
the final ultimate conservative sellout:as usual, the conservatives
are shilling for their MAOIST MARXIST FASCIST masters:Manchurian
Candidates:Supreme Court allows China and others unlimited spending in
US elections
as usual, the conservatives are shilling for their MAOIST MARXIST
FASCIST masters:Manchurian Candidates:Supreme Court allows China and
others unlimited spending in US elections
http://www.alternet.org/story/144502/
Manchurian Candidates:
Supreme Court allows China and others unlimited spending in US
elections
By Greg Palast | Updated from the original report for AlterNet
Thursday, January 21, 2010
In today's Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal
Election Commission, the Court ruled that corporations should be
treated the same as "natural persons", i.e. humans. Well, in that
case, expect the Supreme Court to next rule that Wal-Mart can run for
President.
The ruling, which junks federal laws that now bar corporations from
stuffing campaign coffers, will not, as progressives fear, cause an
avalanche of corporate cash into politics. Sadly, that's already
happened: we have been snowed under by tens of millions of dollars
given through corporate PACs and "bundling" of individual
contributions from corporate pay-rollers.
The Court's decision is far, far more dangerous to U.S. democracy.
Think: Manchurian candidates.
I'm losing sleep over the millions - or billions - of dollars that
could flood into our elections from ARAMCO, the Saudi Oil
corporation's U.S. unit; or from the maker of "New Order" fashions,
the Chinese People's Liberation Army. Or from Bin Laden Construction
corporation. Or Bin Laden Destruction Corporation.
Right now, corporations can give loads of loot through PACs. While
this money stinks (Barack Obama took none of it), anyone can go
through a PAC's federal disclosure filing and see the name of every
individual who put money into it. And every contributor must be a
citizen of the USA.
But under today's Supreme Court ruling that corporations can support
candidates without limit, there is nothing that stops, say, a Delaware-
incorporated handmaiden of the Burmese junta from picking a
Congressman or two with a cache of loot masked by a corporate alias.
Candidate Barack Obama was one sharp speaker, but he would not have
been heard, and certainly would not have won, without the astonishing
outpouring of donations from two million Americans. It was an
unprecedented uprising-by-PayPal, overwhelming the old fat-cat sources
of funding.
Well, kiss that small-donor revolution goodbye. Under the Court's new
rules, progressive list serves won't stand a chance against the
resources of new "citizens" such as CNOOC, the China National Offshore
Oil Corporation. Maybe UBS (United Bank of Switzerland), which faces
U.S. criminal prosecution and a billion-dollar fine for fraud, might
be tempted to invest in a few Senate seats. As would XYZ Corporation,
whose owners remain hidden by "street names."
George Bush's former Solicitor General Ted Olson argued the case to
the court on behalf of Citizens United, a corporate front that funded
an attack on Hillary Clinton during the 2008 primary. Olson's wife
died on September 11, 2001 on the hijacked airliner that hit the
Pentagon. Maybe it was a bit crude of me, but I contacted Olson's
office to ask how much "Al Qaeda, Inc." should be allowed to donate to
support the election of his local congressman.
Olson has not responded.
The danger of foreign loot loading into U.S. campaigns, not much noted
in the media chat about the Citizens case, was the first concern
raised by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who asked about opening the
door to "mega-corporations" owned by foreign governments. Olson
offered Ginsburg a fudge, that Congress might be able to prohibit
foreign corporations from making donations, though Olson made clear he
thought any such restriction a bad idea.
Tara Malloy, attorney with the Campaign Legal Center of Washington
D.C. says corporations will now have more rights than people. Only
United States citizens may donate or influence campaigns, but a
foreign government can, veiled behind a corporate treasury, dump money
into ballot battles.
Malloy also noted that under the law today, human-people, as opposed
to corporate-people, may only give $2,300 to a presidential campaign.
But hedge fund billionaires, for example, who typically operate
through dozens of corporate vessels, may now give unlimited sums
through each of these "unnatural" creatures.
And once the Taliban incorporates in Delaware, they could ante up for
the best democracy money can buy.
In July, the Chinese government, in preparation for President Obama's
visit, held diplomatic discussions in which they skirted issues of
human rights and Tibet. Notably, the Chinese, who hold a $2 trillion
mortgage on our Treasury, raised concerns about the cost of Obama's
health care reform bill. Would our nervous Chinese landlords have an
interest in buying the White House for an opponent of government
spending such as Gov. Palin? Ya betcha!
The potential for foreign infiltration of what remains of our
democracy is an adjunct of the fact that the source and control money
from corporate treasuries (unlike registered PACs), is necessarily
hidden. Who the heck are the real stockholders? Or as Butch asked
Sundance, "Who are these guys?"
We'll never know.
Hidden money funding, whether foreign or domestic, is the new venom
that the Court has injected into the system by its expansive decision
in Citizens United.
We've been there. The 1994 election brought Newt Gingrich to power in
a GOP takeover of the Congress funded by a very strange source.
Congressional investigators found that in crucial swing races,
Democrats had fallen victim to a flood of last-minute attack ads
funded by a group called, "Coalition for Our Children's Future." The
$25 million that paid for those ads came, not from concerned parents,
but from a corporation called "Triad Inc."
Evidence suggests Triad Inc. was the front for the ultra-right-wing
billionaire Koch Brothers and their private petroleum company, Koch
Industries. Had the corporate connection been proven, the Kochs and
their corporation could have faced indictment under federal election
law. As of today, such money-poisoned politicking has become legit.
So it's not just un-Americans we need to fear but the Polluter-
Americans, Pharma-mericans, Bank-Americans and Hedge-Americans that
could manipulate campaigns while hidden behind corporate veils. And if
so, our future elections, while nominally a contest between
Republicans and Democrats, may in fact come down to a three-way battle
between China, Saudi Arabia and Goldman Sachs.
*********
Greg Palast is the author of the New York Times bestseller The Best
Democracy Money Can Buy." Palast investigated Triad Inc. for The
Guardian (UK). View Palast's reports for BBC TV and Democracy Now! at
gregpalast.com.
-
Nickname unavailable
>
> No quote i see , but Fascism is Socialism.
liar,
The aristocrats and gentlemen of the Right who made up the majority of
Hitler's cabinet hated the concept of democracy even more than the
Nazis did, All over Germany, thugs in brown shirts took possession of
the streets and roughed up Communists, socialists, and Jews; they
chased socialist mayors and officials out of government buildings
http://www.buy.com/prod/hitler-and-his-secret-partners/q/loc/106/30426378.html
Chapter 1: Financing the 1933 Elections
On the cold winter weekend of January 28, 1933, Germany was officially
without a government. Chancellor Kurt von Schleicher and his cabinet
had resigned on Saturday afternoon, and eighty-six-year-old President
von Hindenburg had not yet appointed a new chancellor. A nervous
tension spread over Berlin. Everyone waited for news; most felt
Germany was at an historic turning point.
Who would be the next chancellor? Hitler - the leader of the largest
party, the Nazis, who pledged to destroy democracy? Papen - the
aristocratic horseman who had been chancellor before Schleicher, but
who had no popular following? Perhaps Schleicher again, if he could
persuade the Social Democrats, the second largest political party in
the country, to join him in a coalition? Governing Germany in the
middle of an economic depression with nine million unemployed was not
an enviable task. The country had just had three different chancellors
in rapid succession. By tradition, the leader of the largest party was
usually appointed chancellor. But the Nazis had been the largest party
for over a year, and so far intrigues and political maneuvering had
succeeded in keeping Hitler out of power. Everyone guessed what a
Hitler government would mean. He had not kept his militarism, anti-
Semitism, and dictatorial ambitions a secret.
Political intrigues were so numerous that weekend that no one really
knew what was going on. Sensational rumors were being spread
throughout the city. Some said an army coup was imminent, that
Schleicher and the generals were about to abduct President von
Hindenburg and declare martial law. There were also rumors of an armed
Nazi uprising and a general strike by the socialist workers.
Hitler and Hermann Goering, the second most powerful man in the Nazi
party, stayed up all night on Sunday, January 29, trying to figure out
what Hindenburg might do. It was not until after 10 A.M. on Monday
that Hitler received a summons to the president's office. Even at that
point, the Nazis were not certain whether Hitler would be appointed
chancellor or Hindenburg would ask him to serve as vice-chancellor.
Across the street from the Chancellery, in the Kaiserhof Hotel,
Hitler's lieutenants were waiting, unsure of what was going on.
Goebbels, the Nazi propaganda chief, said:
In the street the crowd stands waiting between the Kaiserhof and the
Chancellery. We are torn between doubt, hope, joy and despair. We have
been deceived too often to be able, wholeheartedly, to believe in the
great miracle. [S.A.] Chief of Staff Roehm stands at the window (with
binoculars) watching the door of the Chancellery from which the
Fuehrer [the leader, Hitler] must emerge. We shall be able to judge by
his face if the interview was a success. Torturing hours of waiting.
At last, a car draws up in front of the entrance. The crowd cheers.
They seem to feel that a great change is taking place....
A few moments later, he is with us. He says nothing. His eyes are full
of tears. It has come! The Fuehrer is appointed Chancellor. He has
already been sworn in by the President of the Reich. All of us are
dumb with emotion. Everyone clasps the Fuehrer's hand....Outside the
Kaiserhof, the masses are in a wild uproar....The thousands soon
become tens of thousands. Endless streams of people flood the
Wilhelmstrasse. We set to work...at once.
Hitler's victory was not a complete one by any means. He had been
appointed chancellor in a coalition government. Papen was to be his
vice-chancellor, and all the powerful cabinet posts were held by
Papen's conservative allies, rather than the Nazis. But at the moment,
Hitler's followers weren't worried about the details; for them the
only thing that mattered was that Hitler was chancellor. They had come
to power! All day, crowds gathered in the square outside the Kaiserhof
Hotel and the Chancellery.
At dusk Nazi storm troopers in their brown uniforms gathered in the
Tiergarten park, along with men of the Stahlhelm, an
ultranationalistic veterans' organization, for a torchlight victory
parade through the center of Berlin. As soon as it was dark, they came
marching by the thousands through the Brandenburg Gate, carrying
swastika flags and the black, white, and red flags of the German
empire. Bands marched between the units, beating their big drums as
the men sang old German military songs. But as each band came to the
Pariser Platz, where the French embassy was located, they stopped
whatever they were playing and, with an introductory roll of drums,
broke into the tune of the challenging war song "Victorious We Will
Crush the French."
The torches carried by the marchers glowed hypnotically in the
darkness. To foreign witnesses, it was a frightening sight. "The river
of fire flowed past the French Embassy," Ambassador François-Poncet
wrote, "whence, with heavy heart and filled with foreboding, I watched
this luminous wake." Liberal Germans found it an "ominous sight." It
was, wrote one German reporter, "a night of deadly menace, a nightmare
in...blazing torches."
As the marchers came by the Chancellery, there were tumultuous cheers
for Hitler, who stood in an open window saluting them. He was so
excited that night, he could hardly stand still. He was raising his
arm up and down heiling, smiling, and laughing so much, his eyes
filled with tears. "It was an extraordinary experience," recalled
Papen, who was standing behind Hitler. "The endless repetition of the
triumphal cry: 'Heil, Heil, Sieg Heil!' rang in my ears like a
tocsin." When Hitler turned to speak with Papen, his voice choked with
emotion. "What an immense task we have set for ourselves, Herr von
Papen - we must never part until our work is accomplished." Hitler and
Papen were much closer allies than anyone at the time imagined.
It was after midnight when the parade ended. Being too excited to
sleep, Hitler, Goering, Goebbels, and a few other Nazis sat up talking
for hours. They could hardly believe it had actually happened: they
were in the Chancellery at last. That evening, Hitler said to
Goebbels, "No one gets me out of here alive." It was one of the few
promises he kept.
On the morning of January 31, Hitler's storm troopers gave the German
people a glimpse of what Nazi rule would be like. All over Germany,
thugs in brown shirts took possession of the streets and roughed up
Communists, socialists, and Jews; they chased socialist mayors and
officials out of government buildings and even broke into the private
homes of their political enemies. When people complained to Papen, he
laughed. "Let the storm troopers have their fling." Among his friends
at the Herrenklub, an exclusive gentlemens club, he boasted: "We've
hired Hitler." To a skeptic he replied: "What do you want? I have
Hindenburg's confidence. Within two months we will have pushed Hitler
so far in the corner that he'll squeak."
The facts seemed to support Papen's optimism. Not only did Papen have
Hindenburg"s confidence, but in fact the old president had promised
never to receive Hitler unless he was accompanied by his vice-
chancellor. Papen also held the important post of minister-president
of Prussia, Germany's largest and most powerful state. From the
composition of the cabinet, it seemed all the real power was in the
hands of the conservatives: the aristocratic General von Blomberg was
minister of defense, Baron von Neurath, a career diplomat, was foreign
minister, and the old archreactionary Hugenberg was both minister of
economics and minister of agriculture. The Nazis were outnumbered six
to two.
The two Nazis in the cabinet, Wilhelm Frick and Goering, held posts
that were thought to be insignificant. Frick was minister of the
interior, but he did not control the police, which in Germany was
under the jurisdiction of the individual state governments. Goering
was made minister without portfolio, but with the promise that he
would be minister of aviation as soon as Germany had an air force. He
was also named minister of the interior of Prussia, an office that did
not receive much notice by the public but did control the Prussian
police.
The aristocrats and gentlemen of the Right who made up the majority of
Hitler's cabinet hated the concept of democracy even more than the
Nazis did. These men belonged to the old ruling class of the kaiser's
Germany. They wanted to regain their old position of supremacy, lost
in 1918. They wanted to restore the monarchy, suppress the socialist
unions, avenge the loss of World War I, and make Germany the dominant
power in Europe. It was obvious why such reactionary nationalists
helped put Hitler in power: their goals and his were very similar.
Few people knew the full extent of Papen's collaboration with Hitler.
Historians have said he "did more than anyone else outside the Nazi
party to help Hitler to power." Papen helped Hitler because he was
trying to control him and use the Nazis for his own aims.
Papen was a handsome aristocratic-looking man with distinguished gray
hair and an officer's mustache. From an impoverished family of the
Westphalian nobility, he became a General Staff officer, a skillful
horseman, and a man of great charm. After a successful marriage to the
daughter of a wealthy Saar industrialist, he bought a large block of
shares in the Center party's newspaper, Germania. For a short time in
1932, Papen was chancellor, but his government had no popular support.
Papen believed it would be rather easy for an aristocratic officer
like himself to manipulate a former corporal, like Hitler, and thus be
able to use the Nazi's mass following to accomplish the aims of the
upper-class conservative nationalists.
Hitler immediately began to outmaneuver his conservative colleagues.
He reported to the cabinet that the Center party was making impossible
demands and could not be counted on to form a coalition with the Nazis
and the Nationalists that would have a majority in the Reichstag.
Because of this situation, Hitler argued he would have to call for new
elections. The only "demand" the Center party made was that Hitler
promise to govern constitutionally, but none of the other members of
the cabinet bothered to check Hitler's statement. They agreed to new
elections on the condition that Hitler promise that the composition of
the cabinet would not change regardless of the outcome of the voting.
New elections would provide Hitler with a chance to improve on the
poor results the Nazis had received at the polls the past November. If
the Nazis won a clear majority in the elections, they might be able to
get rid of their coalition partners. Hitler had every reason to
believe the election campaign would be a big success. The entire
machinery of government, including the radio, was now under Nazi
control and could be used for campaigning. The party had been flooded
with new applicants for membership since he had become chancellor. In
the cabinet meeting on February 2, Hitler discussed his preparations
for the elections. Wilhelm Frick, the Nazi minister of the interior,
proposed that the government set aside a million marks for the
election campaign. Count von Schwerin von Krosigk, the minister of
finance, rejected this suggestion. Hitler did not force the issue. He
would have to get the money elsewhere.
The theme of the Nazi election campaign was to be the fight against
communism. Hitler opened the attack in a late-night radio broadcast to
the nation on February 1. He blamed the hard times Germany had gone
through since 1918 on the Social Democrats, which had been the largest
party in the Reichstag during most of those years. The Social
Democrats, he reminded his listeners, were actually a Marxist party.
"Fourteen years of Marxism," he said, "have ruined Germany; one year
of bolshevism [communism] would destroy her. The richest and fairest
territories of the world would be turned into a smoking heap of ruins.
Even the sufferings of the last decade and a half could not be
compared to the misery of a Europe in the heart of which the red flag
of destruction has been hoisted." He went on to promise to put the
unemployed back to work and save the peasants from bankruptcy.
On his fourth day in office, just after opening the election
campaign, Hitler took time off to attend a very important dinner. He
had been invited to the home of General von Hammerstein, chief of
staff of the army, to meet the leading officers of the army and navy.
In a speech that lasted almost two hours, Hitler explained his plans
for rebuilding German military power.
The generals were the real power in Germany during the Weimar period.
After World War II, many Germans tried to cover up the role certain
members of the Officer Corps had played in helping to put Hitler in
power. Many historians naively accepted this view, but the real story
is quite different. Traditionally, the German Army ruled from behind
the scenes and had the final "power to veto" any important issue.
After the loss of World War I, the Versailles Treaty severely
restricted the size of the German Army. The only way the generals
could maintain mass training and develop new weapons was to finance
private paramilitary units, like the Free Corps, with secret army
funds.
Hitler not only began his career as an army agent, but even in the
1930s he was supported by a powerful faction in the army. Over several
years, General von Schleicher, who was in charge of a secret informal
political department of the army, funneled over ten million marks to
Hitler. Why? Many military officers wanted an authoritarian government
that could unify the nation. The people needed to be infused with a
new spirit of patriotism because powerful interests were planning a
war of revenge against the Allies. Naturally there was a division of
opinion among the generals as to how much power to give Hitler.
Hindenburg originally had strong reservations about appointing a man
from a lower-class background, like Hitler, chancellor. However, the
aggressive action the Nazis took against Communists was admired by
Hindenburg, and his relationship with Hitler rapidly improved.
One day, Hindenburg summoned Hitler when Papen was away from Berlin.
Hitler informed the president that Papen was out of town and reminded
him of the rule he (Hindenburg) had made, that the chancellor could
visit him only when accompanied by the vice-chancellor. "The old
gentleman [Hindenburg]," said Hitler, "replied that he wished to see
me alone, and that in the future the presence of Papen could be
regarded as unnecessary. Within three weeks, he had progressed so far
that his attitude towards me became affectionate and paternal. Talking
of the elections fixed for the 3rd of March, he said, 'What are we
going to do if you fail to get a majority? We shall have the same
difficulties all over again.'"
At the beginning of the election campaign, Hitler and Papen persuaded
old President von Hindenburg to sign an emergency decree to protect
law and order. The decree gave Nazi officials the right to prohibit
public meetings. Newspapers could be suppressed if they "incited"
civil disobedience or published "false" reports.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
hitler the conservative:As a master of the "big lie", he was able to
build substantial grass-roots support, based on a platform of anti-
Semitism and anti-communism, conservative values
http://www.harley.com/people/adolph-hitler.html
Interesting People
ADOLPH HITLER
If there is one person in history whose activities changed the world
the most, that person is Adolf Hitler. Hitler (1889-1945) was the
German dictator who founded the National Socialism (Nazi) movement in
1920. Within twonty years, Hitler had led Germany and its allies into
World War II (1939-1945), by any measure, the most devastating war in
history, with over 60 million people killed.
As a young man, Hitler served in the Bavarian army during World War I.
(Bavaria is a part of Germany.) Although he was recognized for
bravery, the experience embittered him, and he blamed Germany's defeat
on Jews and Marxists.
In 1921, Hitler became the leader of the German National Socialist
(Nazi) Party. In 1923, he unsuccessfully attempted to overthrow the
Bavarian government — the so-called Beer Hall Putsch — and was
imprisoned for nine months. During that time, Hitler wrote the book
Mein Kampf ("My Struggle"), in which he laid bare his theories of hate
and anti-Semitism, and his plans for world domination, a vision in
which the German master race would create the so-called Third Reich.
("Germany will either become a World Power or will not continue to
exist at all." — Vol. 2, Ch. XIV)
In time, Mein Kampf would become the bible of the Nazi party. The grew
slowly, however, until the Great Depression, during which Hitler's
skills as a speaker and organizer allowed him to capitalize on the
growing social and economic unrest. As a master of the "big lie", he
was able to build substantial grass-roots support, based on a platform
of anti-Semitism and anti-communism.
Although he had some false starts, Hitler became Chancellor of Germany
in 1933 and, within a year, was given full dictatorial powers by the
government. In concert with other Nazi leaders — principally Goering,
Himmler and Goebbels — Hitler crushed all opposition and took control
of most facets of German life. In 1934, laws were passed to establish
official anti-Semitism and to create the first concentration camps.
On August 2, 1934, the elderly president of Germany died. Within
hours, Hitler declared himself Fuhrer (supreme ruler) of Germany.
Technically, the declaration was illegal. However, less than three
weeks later, a special election was held in which 90 percent of the
German people voted to confirm Hitler as Fuhrer. Hitler was now the
absolute ruler of Germany, a law unto himself.
Over the next few years, Hitler prepared Germany for war, carrying out
many political maneuvers that allowed him to extend his power into
smaller, less powerful countries. On September 1, 1939, Germany
invaded Poland. Two days later, Britain, France, Australia and New
Zealand (the Allies) declared war on Germany, formally starting World
War II.
At first, Germany had a great deal of military success, invading and
conquering much of Europe, North Africa and Russia. On December 11,
1941, Germany declared war on the United States, upon which the U.S.
entered the war on the side of the Allies. Still, it was some time
before the Germans would be stopped. Indeed, on April 26, 1942, Hitler
declared, "This war no longer bears the characteristics of former
inter-European conflicts. It is one of those elemental conflicts which
usher in a new millennium and which shake the world once in a thousand
years."
In the fullness of time, Hitler was proved to be wrong. On February 2,
1943, he received his first major setback when the Germans were
defeated at Stalingrad in southwest Russia. Over the next two years,
the Allies began to defeat Germany, one battle at a time and, by the
spring of 1945, virtually all of Europe and North Africa had been
liberated.
With the Third Reich collapsing around him and the Russians
approaching, Hitler hid in an underground bunker in Berlin. On April
29, 1945, as the Russians approached the city, Hitler married his
longtime mistress Eva Braun. The next day, both Hitler and Braun
committed suicide.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, rec.radio.shortwave, alt.news-media,
alt.religion.christian, alt.politics.economics
Mussolini the father of fascism hated liberalism; his movement was the
first fascist movement – a halfway house between
conservative authoritarianism and modern totalitarianism
Mussolini and fascism in Italy
A. Mussolini hated liberalism; his movement was the first fascist
movement – a halfway house between
conservative authoritarianism and modern totalitarianism.
B. The fascist seizure of power
1. Prior to 1914, Italy was moving toward democracy but with problems:
Catholics, conservatives, and
landowners hated liberalism and the country was divided.
a. Only in Italy did the Socialist party gain leadership prior to
1914.
2. The First World War and postwar problems ended the move toward
democracy in Italy.
a. Workers and peasants felt cheated because wartime promises of
reform were not carried out.
b. Nationalists felt cheated by the war settlement.
Page 4
c. The Russian Revolution energized Italy’s socialists into occupying
factories and farms.
3. By 1922, most Italians were opposed to liberal, parliamentary
government.
4. Mussolini’s Fascists opposed the “Socialist threat” with physical
force (the Black Shirts).
5. Mussolini marched on Rome in 1922 and forced the king to name him
head of the government.
C. The regime in action
1. Mussolini’s Fascists manipulated elections and killed the Socialist
leader Matteotti.
2. Between 1924 and 1926, Mussolini built a one-party Fascist
dictatorship but did not establish a fully
totalitarian state.
a. Much of the old power structure remained, particularly the
conservatives, who controlled the
army, economy, and state.
b. The Catholic church supported Mussolini because he recognized the
Vatican as an independent
state and gave the church heavy financial support.
c. Women were repressed, but Jews were not persecuted until late in
the Second World War.
d. Overall, Mussolini’s fascist Italy was never really totalitarian.
IV.Hitler and Nazism in Germany
A. The roots of Nazism
1. German Nazism was a product of Hitler, of Germany’s social and
political crisis, and the general
attack on liberalism and rationality.
2. Hitler was born in Austria, was a school dropout, and was rejected
by the Imperial art school.
3. Hitler became a fanatical nationalist while in Vienna, vhere he
absorbed anti-Semitic and racist
ideas.
4. He adopted the ideas of some fanatical Christians (e.g., Lueger)
that capitalism and liberalism
resulted in excessive individualism.
5. He became obsessed with anti-Semitism and racism, and believed that
Jews and Marxists lost the
First World War for Germany.
a. He believed in a Jewish-Marxist plot to destroy German culture.
6. By 1921, he had reshaped the tiny extremist German Workers’ group
into the Nazi party, using the
mass rally as a particularly effective tool of propaganda.
a. The party grew rapidly.
b. Hitler and the party attempted to overthrow the Weimar government,
but he was defeated and
sent to jail (1923).
B. Hitler’s road to power
1. The trial after Hitler’s attempted coup brought him much publicity,
but the Nazi party remained
small until 1929.
2. Written in jail, his autobiography, Mein Kampf, was an outline of
his desire to achieve German
racial supremacy and domination of Europe, under the leadership of a
dictator (Führer).
3. The depression made the Nazi party attractive to the lower middle
class, who were seized by panic
as unemployment soared and Communists made election gains.
a. By late 1932, some 43 percent of the labor force was unemployed.
b. Hitler favored government programs to bring about economic
recovery.
4. By 1932, the Nazi party was the largest in the Reichstag-having 38
percent of the total.
5. Hitler wisely stressed the economic issue rather than the anti-
Jewish and racist nationalism issues.
6. He stressed simple slogans tied to national rebirth to arouse
hysterical fanaticism in the masses.
Page 5
7. He appealed to the youth. Almost 40 percent of the Nazi party were
under 30 years of age.
8. One reason for his rise to power is that Bruning and Hindenburg had
already turned to rule by way
of emergency decree.
9. Another reason Hitler won is that the communists welcomed Hitler as
the last breath of monopoly
capitalism.
10. Key people in the army and big business along with conservative
and nationalistic politicians
believed that they could control Hitler; Hitler was legally appointed
chancellor in 1933.
C. The Nazi state and society
I. The Enabling Act of March 1933 gave Hitler absolute dictatorial
power.
2. Germany became a one-party state-only the Nazi party was legal.
a. The Nazi government was hill of rivalries and inefficiencies,
leaving Hitler to act as he wished.
b. Strikes were forbidden and labor unions were replaced by the Nazi
Labor Front.
c. The Nazis took over the government bureaucracy.
d. The Nazis took control of universities, writers, publishing houses;
democratic, socialist, and
Jewish literature was blacklisted.
3. Hitler gained control of the military by crushing his own storm
troopers, the SA, thus ending the
“second revolution.”
4. The Gestapo, or secret police, used tenor and purges to strengthen
Hitler’s hold on power.
5. Hitler set out to eliminate the Jews.
a. The Nuremberg Laws (1935) deprived Jews of their citizenship.
b. By 1938, 150,000 of Germany’s 500,000 Jews had left Germany.
c. Kristallnacht was a wave of violence directed at Jews and their
synagogues and businesses.
D. Hitler’s popularity
1. Hitler promised and delivered economic recovery through public
works projects and military
spending.
a. Unemployment dropped. The standard of living rose moderately – but
business profits rose
sharply.
b. Those who were not Jews, Slays, Gypsies, Jehovah’s Witnesses,
communists, or homosexuals
experienced greater opportunities and equality.
2. Hitler reduced Germany’s traditional class distinctions; the old
ruling elites had to give way to
lower-middle-class people in Hitler’s train.
a. Yet few historians believe that Hitler brought on a real social
revolution: the well-educated classes
held on to their advantaged position, and women remained largely
housewives and mothers.
3. He appealed to Germans for nationalistic reasons.
4. Communists, trade unionists, and some Christians opposed Hitler;
many who opposed him were
executed.
V. Nazi expansion and the Second World War
A. The chief concepts of Nazism were space and race-which demanded
territorial expansion.
B. Aggression and appeasement (1933-1939)
1. When he was in a weak position, Hitler voiced his intention to
overturn an unjust system; when
strong, he kept increasing his demands.
2. He lied about his intentions; he withdrew from the League of
Nations in order to rearm Germany.
Page 6
3. Germany worked to add Austria to a greater Germany, established a
military draft, and declared the
Treaty of Versailles null and void.
a. An Anglo-German naval agreement in 1935 broke Germany’s isolation.
b. In violation of the Treaty of Versailles, Hitler occupied the
demilitarized Rhineland in 1936.
4. The British policy of appeasement, motivated by guilt, fear of
communism, and pacifism, lasted far
into 1939.
5. Mussolini attacked Ethiopia in 1935 and joined Germany in
supporting the fascists in Spain (the
Rome-Berlin Axis alliance).
6. Germany, Italy, and Japan formed an alliance.
7. Hitler annexed Austria and demanded part of Czechoslovakia in 1938.
8. Chamberlain flew to Munich to appease Hitler and agree to his
territorial demands.
9. Hitler accelerated his aggression and occupied all of
Czechoslovakia in 1939.
10. In 1939, Hitler and Stalin signed a public nonaggression pact and
a secret pact that divided eastern
Europe into German and Russian zones.
11. Germany attacked Poland, and Britain and France declared war on
Germany (1939).
C. Hitler’s empire (1939-1942)
1. The key to Hitler’s military success was speed and force (the
blitzkrieg).
2. He crushed Poland quickly and then France; by July 1940, the Nazis
ruled nearly all of Europe
except Britain.
3. He bombed British cities in an attempt to break British morale but
did not succeed.
4. In 1941, Hitler’s forces invaded Russia and conquered the Ukraine
and got as far as Leningrad and
Moscow until stopped by the severe winter weather.
5. After Japan attacked Pearl Harbor (1941), Hitler also declared war
on the United States.
6. Hitler began building a New Order based on racial imperialism.
a. Nordic peoples were treated with preference; the French were
heavily taxed; the Slays were
treated as “subhumans.”
b. The 55 evacuated Polish peasants to create a German “settlement
space.”
c. Polish workers and Russian prisoners of war were sent to Germany to
work as slave laborers.
Most did not survive.
d. Jews, Gypsies, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and communists were condemned
to death.
7. Six million Jews from all over Europe were murdered by killing
squads, in ghettos, or in
concentration camps.
a. At the extermination camps such as Auschwitz-Birkenau the victims
were forced into gas
chambers.
b. Recent research suggests that many Germans knew of and participated
in these killings.
c. Some scholars believe that the key reason so many Germans (and non-
Germans) did not protest
the murders is that they felt no personal responsibility for Jews.
E. The Grand Alliance
1. The Allies had three policies that led them to victory.
a. The United States concentrated on European victory first, then
Japan.
b. The Americans and British put military needs before political
questions, thus avoiding conflict
over postwar settlements.
Page 7
c. The Allies adopted the principle of “unconditional surrender” of
Germany and Japan, denying
Hitler the possibility of dividing his foes.
2. American aid to Britain and the Soviets, along with the heroic
support of the British and Soviet
peoples and the assistance of resistance groups throughout Europe,
contributed to the eventual
victory.
F. The tide of battle
1. The Germans were defeated at Stalingrad at the end of 1942, and
from there on the Soviets took the
offensive.
2. At the same time, American, British, and Australian victories in
the Pacific put Japan on the
defensive.
a. The Battle of the Coral Sea (1942) stopped the Japanese advance.
b. The Battle of Midway Island (1942) established American naval
superiority in the Pacific.
3. The British defeat of Rommel at the Battle of El Alamein (1942)
helped drive the Axis powers from
North Africa in 1943.
4. Italy surrendered in 1943, but fighting continued as the Germans
seized Rome and northern Italy.
5. Bombing of Germany and Hitler’s brutal elimination of opposition
caused the Germans to fight on.
6. The British and Americans invaded German-held France in June 1944
but did not cross into
Germany until March 1945.
a. The Soviets pushed from the east, crossing the Elbe and meeting the
Americans on the other
side on April 26, 1945; Hitler committed suicide, and Germany
surrendered on May 7, 1945.
b. The United States dropped two atomic bombs on Japan in August 1945,
and it too surrendered.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nickname unavailable
> No quote i see , but Fascism is Socialism.
franco the fascist was anti-communist, for conservative family values,
and was supported by hitler and mussolini:During Franco's rule, trade
unions and all political opponents across the political spectrum, from
communist and anarchist organizations to liberal democrats were
either suppressed or tightly controlled by all means, up to and
including violent police repression
Francisco Franco
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
For other uses see, Franco (disambiguation).
Francisco Franco Bahamonde (4 December 1892 in Ferrol – 20 November
1975 in Madrid), commonly known as Francisco Franco (Spanish
pronunciation: [fɾanˈθisko ˈfɾaŋko]) was a military general and
dictator of Spain from October 1936, and de facto regent of the
nominally restored Kingdom of Spain from 1947 until his death in 1975.
During his almost forty year reign, Franco's governance of Spain went
through various different phases. Although the most common ideological
features which were present throughout included a strong sense of
Spanish nationalism and protection of its territorial integrity,
Catholicism, anti-communism and traditional values.[1]
From a military family, Franco originally set out for a career in the
Spanish Navy—however this had reduced since Spain has lost much of its
empire so he became a solider instead. During the early period of his
career he fought in Morocco during the Rif War, rising to the position
of general. Afterwards he was stationed on the Spanish mainland and
saw service suppressing an anarchist led strike in 1934; defending the
stability of Alcalá-Zamora's conservative republican government.
Everything changed in 1936 with the election of the Popular Front, a
far left coalition of socialists, communists, anarchists and liberal
republicans. A period of severe instability ensued, with escalating
violence and distrust between supporters of each side. Anti-clerical
violence against the Church by leftist militants raised tensions.
After the assassination of José Calvo Sotelo, by a commando unit of
the Assault Guards—the military felt a communist dictatorship was
nearing. Franco and the military participated in a coup d'etat against
the Popular Front government.
The coup failed and devolved into the Spanish Civil War during which
he emerged as the leader of the Nationalists against the Popular Front
government. After winning the civil war with support from Benito
Mussolini's Italy and Adolf Hitler's Germany—while the Soviet Union
provided help to the Popular Party—he dissolved the Spanish
Parliament. He then established a right-wing authoritarian regime that
lasted until 1978, when a new constitution was drafted. During the
Second World War, Franco officially maintained a policy of non-
belligerency and later of neutrality. However, he agreed to allow the
many Spanish volunteers, known as the Blue Division to join the
Germany Army in the fight against Communism on the Eastern Front.
After the end of World War II, Franco maintained his control in Spain
through the implementation of repressive and authoritarian measures:
the systematic suppression of dissident views through censorship and
coercion,[2][3] the institutionalization of torture,[4] the
imprisonment of ideological enemies in concentration camps throughout
the country (such as Los Merinales in Seville, San Marcos in León,
Castuera in Extremadura, and Miranda de Ebro)[5], the implementation
of forced labor in prisons[6] and the use of the death penalty and
heavy prison sentences as deterrents for his ideological enemies[7].
During the Cold War, the United States established a diplomatic
alliance with Spain, due to Franco's strong anti-Communist policy.
American President Richard Nixon toasted Franco, [8] and, after
Franco's death, stated: "General Franco was a loyal friend and ally of
the United States[9]." After his death Spain gradually began its
transition to democracy. Today, pre-constitutional symbols from the
Franco regime (such as the national flag with the Imperial Eagle) are
banned by law in Spain.
Contents [hide]
[edit]
Early life
Francisco Franco was born on 4 December 1892, in El Ferrol, Galicia,
which is Spain's chief naval base in the north. The Franco family was
originally from Andalucia and are thought to have a degree of
aristocratic ancestry.[note 1] Since relocating to Galicia they were
strongly involved in the Spanish Navy and over two centuries produced
naval officers for six generations uninterupted, right down to
Franco's father Nicolás Franco y Salgado.
Franco's mother was María del Pilar Bahamonde y Pardo de Andrade and
his parents maried in 1890. The Bahamonde family was of local Galician
aristocratic stock, she was descended from VII Conde de Lemos and his
wife the third Condessa de Villalva, who were descended from
Portuguese royalty and thus from many other European kings.[10][11] He
had two brothers, Nicolás (Ferrol, 1891 - 1977), Spanish Navy Officer
and Diplomat married to María Isabel Pascual del Pobil y Ravello, and
Ramón, a pioneering Aviator, and two sisters María del Pilar (Ferrol,
1894 - Madrid, 1989) and María de la Paz (Ferrol, 1899 - Ferrol,
1900), with whom he spent much of his childhood.
[edit]
Military career
[edit]
Rif War, rise through the ranks
Francisco was to follow his father into the Navy but as a result of
the Spanish-American War the country had lost much of its navy as well
as most of its colonies. Not needing more officers, entry into the
Naval Academy was closed from 1906 to 1913. To his father's chagrin,
he decided to join the Spanish Army. In 1907, he entered the Infantry
Academy in Toledo, from which he graduated in 1910. He was
commissioned as a lieutenant. Two years later, he obtained a
commission to Morocco. Spanish efforts to physically occupy their new
African protectorate provoked the protracted Rif War (from 1909 to
1927) with native Moroccans. Tactics at the time resulted in heavy
losses among Spanish military officers, but also gave the chance of
earning promotion through merit. It was said that officers would get
either la caja o la faja (a coffin or a general's sash). Franco soon
gained a reputation as a good officer. He joined the newly formed
regulares, colonial native troops with Spanish officers, who acted as
shock troops.
In 1916, at the age of 23 and already a captain, he was badly wounded
in a skirmish at El Biutz and possibly lost a testicle.[12] His
survival marked him permanently in the eyes of the native troops as a
man of baraka (good luck). He was also recommended unsuccessfully for
Spain's highest honor for gallantry, the coveted Cruz Laureada de San
Fernando. Instead, he was promoted to major (comandante), becoming the
youngest field grade officer in the Spanish Army. From 1917 to 1920,
he was posted on the Spanish mainland. That last year, Lieutenant
Colonel José Millán Astray, a histrionic but charismatic officer,
founded the Spanish Foreign Legion, along similar lines to the French
Foreign Legion. Franco became the Legion's second-in-command and
returned to Africa. On 24 July 1921, the poorly commanded and
overextended Spanish Army suffered a crushing defeat at Annual at the
hands of the Rif tribes led by the Abd el-Krim brothers. The Legion
symbolically, if not materially, saved the Spanish enclave of Melilla
after a gruelling three-day forced march led by Franco. In 1923,
already a lieutenant colonel, he was made commander of the Legion.
The same year, he married María del Carmen Polo y Martínez-Valdès;
they had one child, a daughter, María del Carmen, born in 1926.[13] As
a special mark of honor, his best man (padrino) at the wedding was
King Alfonso XIII, a fact that would mark him during the Republic as a
monarchical officer. Promoted to colonel, Franco led the first wave of
troops ashore at Al Hoceima in 1925. This landing in the heartland of
Abd el-Krim's tribe, combined with the French invasion from the south,
spelled the beginning of the end for the short-lived Republic of the
Rif. Becoming the youngest general in Spain in 1926, Franco was
appointed in 1928 director of the newly created the General Military
Academy of Zaragoza, a new college for all Army cadets, replacing the
former separate institutions for young men seeking to become officers
in infantry, cavalry, artillery, and other branches of the army.
[edit]
During the Second Spanish Republic
With the fall of the monarchy in 1931, in keeping with his long-
standing apolitical record, Franco did not take any notable stand. But
the closing of the Academy, in June, by War Minister Manuel Azaña,
provoked his first clash with the Republic. Azaña found Franco's
farewell speech to the cadets[14] insulting. For six months, Franco
was without a post and under surveillance.
On 5 February 1932, he was given a command in La Coruña. Franco
avoided involvement in José Sanjurjo's attempted coup that year, and
even wrote a hostile letter to Sanjurjo expressing his anger over the
attempt. As a side result of Azaña's military reform, in January 1933,
Franco was relegated from the first to the 24th in the list of
Brigadiers; conversely, the same year (17 February), he was given the
military command of the Balearic Islands: a post above his rank.
New elections held in October 1933 resulted in a center-right
majority. In opposition to this government, a revolutionary movement
broke out 5 October 1934. This uprising was rapidly quelled in most of
the country, but gained a stronghold in Asturias, with the support of
the miners' unions. Franco, already general of a Division and aide to
the war minister, Diego Hidalgo, was put in command of the operations
directed to suppress the insurgency. The forces of the Army in Africa
were to carry the brunt of this, with General Eduardo López Ochoa as
commander in the field. After two weeks of heavy fighting (and a death
toll estimated between 1,200 and 2,000), the rebellion was suppressed.
The insurgency in Asturias sharpened the antagonism between Left and
Right. Franco and López Ochoa—who, prior to the campaign in Asturias,
was seen as a left-leaning officer—were marked by the left as enemies.
At the start of the Civil War, López Ochoa was assassinated. Some time
after these events, Franco was briefly commander-in-chief of the Army
of Africa (from 15 February onwards), and from 19 May 1935 on, Chief
of the General Staff.
[edit]
1936 general election
After the ruling centre-right coalition collapsed amid the Straperlo
corruption scandal, new elections were scheduled. Two wide coalitions
formed: the Popular Front on the left, ranging from Republican Union
Party to Communists, and the Frente Nacional on the right, ranging
from the center radicals to the conservative Carlists. On February 16,
1936, the left won by a narrow margin.[15] Growing political
bitterness surfaced again. The government and its supporters, the
Popular Front, had launched a campaign against the Opposition whom
they accused of plotting against the Republic. The Opposition parties,
on the other hand, had reacted with increasing vigour. The latter
claimed that the Popular Front had illegally obtained two hundred
seats in a Parliament of 473 members. After the loss of 200 seats, the
Opposition Parties claimed the government represented only a small
minority, adding claims that the Popular Front's parliamentary
majority was the result of large-scale electoral fraud, of Government-
sponsored mob terror and intimidation, of the arbitrary annulment of
all election certificates in many Right-wing constituencies, and of
the expulsion, the arrest, or even the assassination, of many legally
elected deputies of the Right. According to the Opposition, the real
enemies of the Republic were not on the Right but on the Left; Spain
was in imminent danger of falling under a Communist dictatorship, and
therefore by fighting the Popular Front they, the Opposition, were
merely doing their duty in defence of law and order and of the freedom
and the fundamental rights of the Spanish people.[16]
The days after the election were marked by near-chaotic circumstances.
Franco lobbied unsuccessfully to have a state of emergency declared,
with the stated purpose of quelling the disturbances and allowing an
orderly vote recount.[citation needed]
Instead, on 23 February, Franco was sent to the distant Canary Islands
to serve as the islands' military commander, a position in which he
had few troops under his command.
Meanwhile, a conspiracy led by Emilio Mola was taking shape. In June,
Franco was contacted and a secret meeting was held in Tenerife's La
Esperanza Forest to discuss a military coup. (A commemorative obelisk
commemorating this historic meeting can be found in a clearing at Las
Raíces.)
Outwardly, Franco maintained an ambiguous attitude almost up until
July. On June 23, 1936, he wrote to the head of the government,
Casares Quiroga, offering to quell the discontent in the army, but was
not answered. The other rebels were determined to go ahead, con
Paquito o sin Paquito (with Franco or without him), as it was put by
José Sanjurjo, the honorary leader of the military uprising. After
various postponements, July 18 was fixed as the date of the uprising.
The situation reached a point of no return and, as presented to Franco
by Mola, the coup was unavoidable and he had to choose a side. He
decided to join the rebels and was given the task of commanding the
Army of Africa. A privately owned DH 89 De Havilland Dragon Rapide,
was chartered in England July 11 to take Franco to Africa.
The assassination of the right-wing opposition leader José Calvo
Sotelo by government police troops, possibly acting on their own in
retaliation for the murder of José Castillo, precipitated the
uprising. On July 17, one day earlier than planned, the African Army
rebelled, detaining their commanders. On July 18, Franco published a
manifesto[17] and left for Africa, where he arrived the next day to
take command.
A week later, the rebels, who soon called themselves the Nationalists,
controlled only a third of Spain, and most navy units remained under
control of the Republican loyalist forces, which left Franco isolated.
The coup had failed, but the Spanish Civil War had begun.
[edit]
From the Spanish Civil War to World War II
Main articles: Spanish Civil War and Spain in World War II
The Spanish Civil War began in July 1936 and officially ended with
Franco's victory in April 1939, leaving 190,000[18] to 500,000[19]
dead. Despite the Non-Intervention Agreement of August 1936, the war
was marked by foreign intervention on behalf of both sides, leading to
international repercussions. The nationalist side was supported by
Fascist Italy, which sent the Corpo Truppe Volontarie and later Nazi
Germany, which assisted with the Condor Legion infamous for their
bombing of Guernica in April 1937. Britain and France strictly adhered
to the arms embargo, provoking dissensions within the French Popular
Front coalition led by Léon Blum, but the Republican side was
nonetheless supported by volunteers fighting in the International
Brigades and the Soviet Union. (See for example Ken Loach's Land and
Freedom.)
Because Hitler and Stalin used the war as a testing ground for modern
warfare, some historians, such as Ernst Nolte, have considered the
Spanish Civil War, along with the Second World War, part of a
"European Civil War" lasting from 1936 to 1945 and characterized
mainly as a Left/Right ideological conflict. However, this
interpretation has not found acceptance among most historians, who
consider the Second World War and the Spanish Civil War two distinct
conflicts. Among other things, they point to the political
heterogeneity on both sides (See Spanish Civil War: Other Factions in
the War) and criticize a monolithic interpretation which overlooks the
local nuances of Spanish history.
[edit]
The first months
Despite Franco having no money, while the state treasury was in Madrid
with the government, there was an organized economic lobby in London
looking after his financial needs with Lisbon as their operational
base. Eventually, he was to receive important help from his economic
and diplomatic boosters abroad.
Following the 18 July 1936, pronunciamento, Franco assumed the
leadership of the 30,000 soldiers of the Spanish Army of Africa. The
first days of the insurgency were marked with a serious need to secure
control over the Spanish Moroccan Protectorate. On one side, Franco
managed to win the support of the natives and their (nominal)
authorities, and, on the other, to ensure his control over the army.
This led to the summary execution of some 200 senior officers loyal to
the Republic (one of them his own first cousin). Also his loyal
bodyguard was shot by a man known as Manuel Blanco. [20] Franco's
first problem was how to move his troops to the Iberian Peninsula,
since most units of the Navy had remained in control of the Republic
and were blocking the Strait of Gibraltar. He requested help from
Mussolini, who responded with an unconditional offer of arms and
planes; Wilhelm Canaris, the head of the Abwehr military intelligence,
persuaded Hitler, as well, to support the Nationalists. From July 20
onward he was able, with a small group of 22 mainly German Junkers Ju
52 airplanes, to initiate an air bridge to Seville, where his troops
helped to ensure the rebel control of the city. Through
representatives, Franco started to negotiate with the United Kingdom,
Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy for more military support, and above
all for more airplanes. Negotiations were successful with the last two
on July 25, and airplanes began to arrive in Tetouan on August 2. On
August 5, Franco was able to break the blockade with the newly arrived
air support, successfully deploying a ship convoy with some 2,000
soldiers.
In early August, the situation in western Andalusia was stable enough
to allow him to organize a column (some 15,000 men at its height),
under the command of then Lieutenant-Colonel Juan Yagüe, which would
march through Extremadura towards Madrid. On August 11, Mérida was
taken, and on August 15 Badajoz, thus joining both nationalist-
controlled areas. Additionally, Mussolini ordered a voluntary army,
the Corpo Truppe Volontarie (CTV) of some 12,000 Italians of fully
motorized units to Seville and Hitler added to them a professional
squadron from the Luftwaffe (2JG/88) with about 24 planes. All these
planes had the Nationalist Spanish insignia painted on them, but were
flown by Italian and German troops. The backbone of Franco's aviation
in those days were the Italian SM.79 and SM.81 bombers, the biplane
Fiat CR.32 fighter and the German Junkers Ju 52 cargo-bomber and the
Heinkel He 51 biplane fighter.
On 21 September, with the head of the column at the town of Maqueda
(some 80 km away from Madrid), Franco ordered a detour to free the
besieged garrison at the Alcázar of Toledo, which was achieved
September 27. This controversial decision gave the Popular Front time
to strengthen its defenses in Madrid and hold the city that year but
was an important morale and propaganda success.
[edit]
Rise to power
The designated leader of the uprising, Gen. José Sanjurjo died on July
20 1936 in an air crash. Therefore, in the nationalist zone,
"Political life ceased."[21] Initially, only military command
mattered; this was divided into regional commands (Emilio Mola in the
North, Gonzalo Queipo de Llano in Seville commanding Andalusia, Franco
with an independent command and Miguel Cabanellas in Zaragoza
commanding Aragon). The Spanish Army of Morocco itself was split into
two columns, one commanded by General Juan Yagüe and the other
commanded by Colonel José Varela.
From 24 July, a coordinating junta was established, based at Burgos.
Nominally led by Cabanellas, as the most senior general,[22] it
initially included Mola, three other generals, and two colonels;
Franco was added in early August.[23] On September 21, it was decided
that Franco was to be commander-in-chief (this unified command was
opposed only by Cabanellas),[24] and, after some discussion, with no
more than a lukewarm agreement from Queipo de Llano and from Mola,
also head of government.[25] He was doubtless helped to this primacy
by the fact that, in late July, Hitler had decided that all of
Germany's aid to the nationalists would go to Franco.[26]
Mola considered Franco as unfit and not part of the initial rebel
group.[citation needed] But Mola himself had been somewhat discredited
as the main planner of the attempted coup that had now degenerated
into a civil war, and was strongly identified with the Carlists
monarchists and not at all with the Falange, a party with Fascist
leanings and connections, nor did he have good relations with Germans;
Queipo de Llano and Cabanellas had both previously rebelled against
the dictatorship of Miguel Primo de Rivera and were therefore
discredited in some nationalist circles; and Falangist leader José
Antonio Primo de Rivera was in prison in Madrid (he would be executed
a few months later) and the desire to keep a place open for him
prevented any other falangist leader from emerging as a possible head
of state. Franco's previous aloofness from politics meant that he had
few active enemies in any of the factions that needed to be placated,
and had cooperated in recent months with both Germany and Italy.[27]
On 1 October 1936, in Burgos, Franco was publicly proclaimed as
Generalísimo of the National army and Jefe del Estado (Head of State).
[28] Mola was furious and Cabanellas intervened to calm the spirits
down.[citation needed] When Mola was killed in another air accident a
year later (which some believe was an assassination) (June 2, 1937),
no military leader was left from those who organized the conspiracy
against the Republic between 1933 and 1935.[29]
[edit]
Military command
From that time until the end of the war, Franco personally guided
military operations. After the failed assault on Madrid in November
1936, Franco settled to a piecemeal approach to winning the war,
rather than bold maneuvering. As with his decision to relieve the
garrison at Toledo, this approach has been subject of some debate;
some of his decisions, such as, in June 1938, when he preferred to
head for Valencia instead of Catalonia, remain particularly
controversial from a military viewpoint. It was however, in Valencia,
Castellon and Alicante where the last troops were defeated by Franco
Franco's army was supported by Nazi Germany in the form of the Condor
Legion, infamous for the bombing of Guernica on April 26, 1937. These
German forces also provided maintenance personnel and trainers, and
some Germans and Italians served over the entire war period in Spain.
Principal assistance was received from Fascist Italy (Corpo Truppe
Volontarie), but the degree of influence of both powers on Franco's
direction of the war seems to have been very limited. Nevertheless,
the Italian troops, despite not being always effective, were present
in most of the large operations in big numbers, while the CTV helped
the Nationalist airforce dominate the skies for most of the war.
António de Oliveira Salazar's Portugal also openly assisted the
Nationalists from the start, contributing some 20,000 troops.
It is said that Franco's direction of the Nazi and Fascist forces was
limited, particularly in the direction of the Condor Legion, however,
he was officially, by default, their supreme commander and they rarely
made decisions on their own. For reasons of prestige, it was decided
to continue assisting Franco until the end of the war, and Italian and
German troops paraded on the day of the final victory in Madrid.[30]
[edit]
Political command
In April 1937, Franco managed to fuse the ideologically incompatible
national-syndicalist Falange ("phalanx", a far-right Spanish political
party founded by José Antonio Primo de Rivera) and the Carlist
monarchist parties under a single-party under his rule, dubbed Falange
Española Tradicionalista y de las Juntas de Ofensiva Nacional-
Sindicalista (FET y de las JONS), which became the only legal party in
1939. The Falangists' hymn, Cara al Sol, became the semi-national
anthem of Franco's not yet established regime.
This new political formation appeased the pro-Nazi Falangists while
tempering them with the anti-German Carlists. Franco's brother-in-law
Ramón Serrano Súñer, who was his main political advisor, was able to
turn the various parties under Franco against each other to absorb a
series of political confrontations against Franco himself. At a
certain moment he even expelled the original leading members of both
the Carlists (Manuel Fal Conde) and the Falangists (Manuel Hedilla) to
secure Franco's political future. Franco also appeased the Carlists by
exploiting the Republicans' anti-clericalism in his propaganda, in
particular concerning the "Martyrs of the war". While the loyalist
forces presented the war as a struggle to defend the Republic against
Fascism, Franco depicted himself as the defender of "Christian Europe"
against "atheist Communism."
From early 1937, every death sentence had to be signed (or
acknowledged) by Franco. From the beginning of the revolt, all the
Junta generals ordered massive public and summary executions to spread
fear and reduce resistance among the civilians.
[edit]
The end of the Civil War
Before the fall of Catalonia in February 1939, the Prime Minister of
Spain Juan Negrín unsuccessfully proposed, in the meeting of the
Cortes in Figueres, capitulation with the sole condition of respecting
the lives of the vanquished. Negrín was ultimately deposed by Colonel
Segismundo Casado, later joined by José Miaja.
Thereafter, only Madrid (see History of Madrid) and a few other areas
remained under control of the government forces. On February 27,
Chamberlain and Daladier's governments recognized the Franco regime,
before the official end of the war. The PCE attempted a mutiny in
Madrid with the aim of re-establishing Negrín's leadership, but José
Miaja retained control. Finally, on March 28, 1939, with the help of
pro-Franco forces inside the city (the "fifth column" General Mola had
mentioned in propaganda broadcasts in 1936), Madrid fell to the
Nationalists. The next day, Valencia, which had held out under the
guns of the Nationalists for close to two years, also surrendered.
Victory was proclaimed on April 1, 1939, when the last of the
Republican forces surrendered. On this very date, Franco placed his
sword upon the altar in a church and in a vow, promised that he would
never again take up his sword unless Spain itself was threatened with
invasion.
At least 50,000 people were executed during the civil war.[19][31][32]
Franco's victory was followed by thousands of summary executions (from
15,000 to 25,000 people [33]) and imprisonments, while many were put
to forced labour, building railways, drying out swamps, digging canals
(La Corchuela, the Canal of the Bajo Guadalquivir), construction of
the Valle de los Caídos monument, etc. The 1940 shooting of the
president of the Catalan government, Lluís Companys, was one of the
most notable cases of this early suppression of opponents and
dissenters.
Although leftists suffered from an important death-toll, the Spanish
intelligentsia, atheists and military and government figures who had
remained loyal to the Madrid government during the war were also
targeted for oppression.
In his recent, updated history of the Spanish Civil War, Antony Beevor
"reckons Franco's ensuing 'white terror' claimed 200,000 lives. The
'red terror' had already killed 38,000."[34] Julius Ruiz concludes
that "although the figures remain disputed, a minimum of 37,843
executions were carried out in the Republican zone with a maximum of
150,000 executions (including 50,000 after the war) in Nationalist
Spain."[35] In Checas de Madrid, César Vidal comes to a nationwide
total of 110,965 victims of Republican violence; 11,705 people being
killed in Madrid alone.[36]
Despite the official end of the war, guerrilla resistance to Franco
(known as "the maquis") was widespread in many mountainous regions,
and continued well into the 1950s. In 1944, a group of republican
veterans, which also fought in the French resistance against the
Nazis, invaded the Val d'Aran in northwest Catalonia, but they were
quickly defeated.
The end of the war led to hundreds of thousands of exilees, mostly to
France (but also Mexico, Chile, Cuba, the USA and so on.).[37] On the
other side of the Pyrenees, refugees were confined in internment camps
of the French Third Republic, such as Camp Gurs or Camp Vernet, where
12,000 Republicans were housed in squalid conditions (mostly soldiers
from the Durruti Division [38]). The 17,000 refugees housed in Gurs
were divided into four categories (Brigadists, pilots, Gudaris and
ordinary 'Spaniards'). The Gudaris (Basques) and the pilots easily
found local backers and jobs, and were allowed to quit the camp, but
the farmers and ordinary people, who could not find relations in
France, were encouraged by the Third Republic, in agreement with the
Francoist government, to return to Spain. The great majority did so
and were turned over to the Francoist authorities in Irún. From there
they were transferred to the Miranda de Ebro camp for "purification"
according to the Law of Political Responsibilities.
After the proclamation by Marshal Philippe Pétain of the Vichy France
regime, the refugees became political prisoners, and the French police
attempted to round-up those who had been liberated from the camp.
Along with other "undesirables", they were sent to the Drancy
internment camp before being deported to Nazi Germany. 5,000 Spaniards
thus died in Mauthausen concentration camp [39]. The Chilean poet
Pablo Neruda, who had been named by the Chilean President Pedro
Aguirre Cerda special consul for immigration in Paris, was given
responsibility for what he called "the noblest mission I have ever
undertaken": shipping more than 2,000 Spanish refugees, who had been
housed by the French in squalid camps, to Chile on an old cargo ship,
the Winnipeg.
[edit]
World War II
In September 1939, World War II broke out in Europe, and although
Hitler met Franco once in Hendaye, France (October 23, 1940), to
discuss Spanish entry on the side of the Axis, Franco's demands (food,
military equipment, Gibraltar, French North Africa, Portugal, etc.)
proved too much and no agreement was reached. (An oft-cited remark
attributed to Hitler is that the German leader would rather have some
teeth extracted than to have to deal further with Franco.) Franco's
tactics received important support from Adolf Hitler and Benito
Mussolini during the civil war. He remained emphatically neutral in
the Second World War, but nonetheless offered various kinds of support
to Italy and Germany. He allowed Spanish soldiers to volunteer to
fight in the German Army against the USSR (the Blue Division), but
forbade Spaniards to fight in the West against the democracies.
Franco's common ground with Hitler was particularly weakened by
Hitler's propagation of a pseudo-pagan mysticism and his attempts to
manipulate Christianity, which went against Franco's deep commitment
to defending Christianity and Catholicism.[citation needed]
Contributing to the disagreement was an ongoing dispute over German
mining rights in Spain. Some historians argue that Franco made demands
that he knew Hitler would not accede to in order to stay out of the
war. Other historians argue that he, as leader of a destroyed country
in chaos, simply had nothing to offer the Germans and their military.
Yet, after the collapse of France in June 1940, Spain did adopt a pro-
Axis non-belligerency stance (for example, he offered Spanish naval
facilities to German ships) until returning to complete neutrality in
1943 when the tide of the war had turned decisively against Germany
and its allies. Some volunteer Spanish troops (the División Azul, or
"Blue Division")—not given official state sanction by Franco—went to
fight on the Eastern Front under German command from 1941–1943. Some
historians have argued that not all of the Blue Division were true
volunteers and that Franco expended relatively small but significant
resources to aid the Axis powers' battle against the Soviet Union.
During the entire war, especially after 1942, the Spanish borders were
more or less kept open for Jewish refugees from Vichy France and Nazi-
occupied territories in Europe. Franco's diplomats extended their
diplomatic protection over Sephardic Jews in Hungary, Slovakia and the
Balkans. Spain was a safe haven for all Jewish refugees and
antisemitism was not official policy under the Franco regime.
On June 14, 1940, the Spanish forces in Morocco occupied Tangier (a
city under the rule of the League of Nations) and did not leave it
until 1945.
[edit]
Spain under Franco
Main article: Spain under Franco
Franco was recognized as the Spanish head of state by Britain and
France in February 1939, two months before the war officially ended.
Already proclaimed Generalísimo of the Nationalists and Jefe del
Estado (Head of State) in October 1936 [28], he thereafter assumed the
official title of "Su Excelencia el Jefe de Estado" ("His Excellency
the Head of State"). However, he was also referred to in state and
official documents as "Caudillo de España" ("the Leader of Spain"),
and sometimes called "el Caudillo de la Última Cruzada y de la
Hispanidad" ("the Leader of the Last Crusade and of the Hispanic
World") and "el Caudillo de la Guerra de Liberación contra el
Comunismo y sus Cómplices" ("the Leader of the War of Liberation
Against Communism and Its Accomplices").
In 1947, Franco proclaimed Spain a monarchy, but did not designate a
monarch. This gesture was largely done to appease the Movimiento
Nacional (Carlists and Alfonsists). Although a self-proclaimed
monarchist himself, Franco had no particular desire for a King yet,
and as such, he left the throne vacant, with himself as de facto
Regent. He wore the uniform of a Captain General (a rank traditionally
reserved for the King) and resided in the El Pardo Palace. In
addition, he appropriated the royal privilege of walking beneath a
canopy, and his portrait appeared on most Spanish coins and postage
stamps. He also added "by the grace of God," a phrase usually part of
the styles of monarchs, to his style.
Franco initially sought support from various groups. He initially
garnered support from the fascist elements of the Falange, but
distanced himself from fascist ideology after the defeat of the Axis
in World War II. Franco's administration marginalized fascist
ideologues in favor of technocrats, many of whom were linked with Opus
Dei, who promoted the economic modernization under Franco[40].
Although Franco and Spain under his rule adopted some trappings of
fascism, he, and Spain under his rule, are not generally considered to
be fascist; among the distinctions, fascism entails a revolutionary
aim to transform society, where Franco and Franco's Spain did not seek
to do so, and, to the contrary, although authoritarian, were
conservative and traditional.[41][42][43][44][45] Stanley Payne, the
preeminent conservative scholar on fascism and Spain notes: "scarcely
any of the serious historians and analysts of Franco consider the
generalissimo to be a core fascist". [44][46] The consistent points in
Franco's long rule included above all authoritarianism, nationalism,
the defense of Catholicism and the family, anti-Freemasonry, and anti-
Communism.
The aftermath of the Civil War was socially bleak: many of those who
had supported the Republic fled into exile. Spain lost thousands of
doctors, nurses, teachers, lawyers, judges, professors, businessmen,
artists,etc. Many of those who had to stay lost their jobs or lost
their rank. Sometimes those jobs were given to unskilled and even
untrained personnel. This deprived the country of many of its
brightest minds, and also of a very capable workforce.[citation
needed]. However, this was done to keep Spain's citizens consistent
with the ideals sought by the Nationalists and Franco.
With the end of World War II, Spain suffered from the economic
consequences of its isolation from the international community. This
situation ended in part when, due to Spain's strategic location in
light of Cold War tensions, the United States entered into a trade and
military alliance with Spain. This historic alliance commenced with
United States President Eisenhower's visit in 1953 which resulted in
the Pact of Madrid. Spain was then admitted to the United Nations in
1955.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, rec.radio.shortwave, alt.news-media,
alt.religion.christian, alt.politics.economics
Common characteristics of fascist movements » Opposition to Marxism
Fascists made no secret of their hatred of Marxists of all stripes,
from totalitarian communists to democratic socialists, Mussolini first
made his reputation as a fascist by unleashing armed squads of
Blackshirts on striking workers
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/202210/fascism/219363/Common-characteristics-of-fascist-movements
Common characteristics of fascist movements
There has been considerable disagreement among historians and
political scientists about the nature of fascism. Some scholars, for
example, regard it as a socially radical movement with ideological
ties to the Jacobins of the French Revolution, whereas others see it
as an extreme form of conservatism inspired by a 19th-century backlash
against the ideals of the Enlightenment. Some find fascism deeply
irrational, whereas others are impressed with the rationality with
which it served the material interests of its supporters. Similarly,
some attempt to explain fascist demonologies as the expression of
irrationally misdirected anger and frustration, whereas others
emphasize the rational ways in which these demonologies were used to
perpetuate professional or class advantages. Finally, whereas some
consider fascism to be motivated primarily by its aspirations—by a
desire for cultural “regeneration” and the creation of a “new man”—
others place greater weight on fascism’s “anxieties”—on its fear of
communist revolution and even of left-centrist electoral victories.
One reason for these disagreements is that the two historical regimes
that are today regarded as paradigmatically fascist—Mussolini’s Italy
and Nazi Germany—were different in important respects. In Italy, for
example, anti-Semitism was officially rejected before 1934, and it was
not until 1938 that Mussolini enacted a series of anti-Semitic
measures in order to solidify his new military alliance with Hitler.
Another reason is the fascists’ well-known opportunism—i.e., their
willingness to make changes in official party positions in order to
win elections or consolidate power. Finally, scholars of fascism
themselves bring to their studies different political and cultural
attitudes, which often have a bearing on the importance they assign to
one or another aspect of fascist ideology or practice. Secular
liberals, for example, have stressed fascism’s religious roots; Roman
Catholic and Protestant scholars have emphasized its secular origins;
social conservatives have pointed to its “socialist” and “populist”
aspects; and social radicals have noted its defense of “capitalism”
and “elitism.”
For these and other reasons, there is no universally accepted
definition of fascism. Nevertheless, it is possible to identify a
number of general characteristics that fascist movements between 1922
and 1945 tended to have in common.
Common characteristics of fascist movements » Opposition to Marxism
Fascists made no secret of their hatred of Marxists of all stripes,
from totalitarian communists to democratic socialists. Fascists
promised to deal more “firmly” with Marxists than had earlier, more
democratic rightist parties. Mussolini first made his reputation as a
fascist by unleashing armed squads of Blackshirts on striking workers
and peasants in 1920–21. Many early Nazis had served in the Freikorps,
the paramilitary groups formed by ex-soldiers to suppress leftist
activism in Germany at the end of World War I. The Nazi SA
(Sturmabteilung [“Assault Division”], or Brownshirts) clashed
regularly with German leftists in the streets before 1933, and when
Hitler came to power he sent hundreds of Marxists to concentration
camps and intimidated “red” neighbourhoods with police raids and
beatings.
For French fascists, Marxism was the main enemy. In 1925, Valois,
leader of the Faisceau, declared that the guiding principle of his
organization was “the elimination of socialism and everything
resembling it.” In 1926 Taittinger declared that the primary goal of
his Patriotic Youth was to “defeat the progress of communism by any
means necessary,” adding that “We defend the hierarchy of classes.…
Everyone knows that there will always be different social levels, the
strong and the weak, the rich and the poor, the governing and the
governed.” In 1936 French Popular Party leader Doriot announced that
“Our politics are simple. We want a union of the French people against
Marxism.” Similarly, La Rocque, head of the Cross of Fire/French
Social Party, warned that communism was “the danger par excellence”
and that the machinations of Moscow were threatening France with
“insurrection, subversion, catastrophe.”
In 1919–20 the Heimwehr in Austria performed the same function that
the Freikorps did in Germany, its volunteer militia units
(Heimatschutz) doing battle with perceived foreign enemies and the
Marxist foe within. Many of these units were organized by members of
the landed gentry and the middle class to counter strikes by workers
in the industrial districts of Linz and Steyer. In 1927 violent
clashes between the Heimwehr and the Schutzbund, a socialist defense
organization, resulted in many deaths and injuries among the leftists.
In 1934 the Heimwehr joined Dollfuss’s Fatherland Front and was
instrumental in pushing Dollfuss toward fascism.
Many Finnish fascists began their political careers after World War I
as members of the anticommunist paramilitary group the White Guards.
In Spain much of the Falange’s early violence was directed against
socialist students at the University of Madrid. Portuguese Blue
Shirts, who called themselves “national syndicalists,” regarded
systematic violence against leftists to be “revolutionary.” During the
Spanish Civil War, Spanish, Portuguese, Italian, and German fascists
joined forces to defeat the Popular Front, a coalition of liberals,
socialists, communists, and anarchists who had been democratically
elected in 1936.
In 1919 a number of fascist groups emerged in Japan to resist new
demands for democracy and to counter the influence of the Russian
Revolution of 1917. Although there were important differences between
these groups, they all opposed “bolshevization,” which some Japanese
fascists associated with increasing agitation by tenant farmers and
industrial workers. Fascists acted as strikebreakers; launched violent
assaults on left-wing labour unions, peasant unions, and the socialist
Levelling Society; and disrupted May Day celebrations. In 1938
Japanese fascists, having become powerful in the national government,
supported the mass arrest of leaders of the General Council of Trade
Unions (Nihon Rodo Kumiai So Hyogikai) and the Japan Proletarian Party
(Dai Nippon Seisan-To) and of professors close to the Labour-Peasant
Faction. Celebrations of May Day in Japan were prohibited in 1938, and
in 1939 Japan withdrew from all international labour organizations.
Despite the fascists’ violent opposition to Marxism, some observers
have noted significant similarities between fascism and Soviet
communism. Both were mass movements, both emerged in the years
following World War I in circumstances of political turmoil and
economic collapse, both sought to create totalitarian systems after
they came to power (and often concealed their totalitarian ambitions
beforehand), and both employed terror and violence without scruple
when it was expedient to do so. Other scholars have cautioned against
reading too much into these similarities, however, noting that fascist
regimes (in particular Nazi Germany) used terror for different
purposes and against different groups than did the Soviets and that
fascists, unlike communists, generally supported capitalism and
defended the interests of economic elites.
Common characteristics of fascist movements » Opposition to
parliamentary democracy
Fascist movements criticized parliamentary democracy for allowing the
Marxist threat to exist in the first place. According to Hitler,
democracy undermined the natural selection of ruling elites and was
“nothing other than the systematic cultivation of human failure.”
Joseph Goebbels, Hitler’s minister of propaganda, maintained that the
people never rule themselves and claimed that every history-making
epoch had been created by aristocrats. Primo de Rivera wrote that “our
Spain will not emerge from elections” but would be saved by poets with
“weapons in their hands.” In Japan the Tojo dictatorship dissolved all
political parties, even right-wing groups, and reduced other political
freedoms.
Before they came to power, Hitler and Mussolini, despite their dislike
of democracy, were willing to engage in electoral politics and give
the appearance of submitting to democratic procedures. When Hitler was
appointed chancellor in 1933, he abandoned his military uniform for a
civilian suit and bowed profusely to President Paul von Hindenburg in
public ceremonies. In 1923 Mussolini proposed an electoral reform,
known as the Acerbo Law, that gave two-thirds of the seats in
Parliament to the party that received the largest number of votes.
Although Mussolini insisted that he wanted to save Parliament rather
than undermine it, the Acerbo Law enabled the Fascists to take control
of Parliament the following year and impose a dictatorship.
In France, La Rocque declared in 1933 that no election should take
place without a preliminary “cleansing of [government] committees and
the press,” and he threatened to use his paramilitary squads to
silence “agitators of disorder.” In 1935 he called elections exercises
in “collective decadence,” and early in 1936 he told his followers
that “even the idea of soliciting a vote nauseates me.” A few months
later, faced with the prospect that the Cross of Fire would be banned
by the government as a paramilitary organization, he founded a new and
ostensibly more democratic party, the French Social Party, which he
publicly claimed was “firmly attached to republican liberties.” He
privately made it clear to his followers, however, that his conversion
was more tactical than principled: “To scorn universal suffrage,” he
said, “does not withstand examination. Neither Mussolini nor Hitler…
committed that mistake. Hitlerism, in particular, raised itself to
total power through elections.” With the collapse of the Third
Republic in 1940 and the creation of the Vichy regime, La Rocque
returned to condemning democracy as he had before 1936: “The world
situation has put a halt to democracy,” he wrote. “We have condemned
the thing as well as the word.” In 1941 La Rocque insisted that the
French people obey Vichy’s new leaders the way soldiers obeyed their
officers.
Common characteristics of fascist movements » Opposition to political
and cultural liberalism
Although circumstances sometimes made accommodation to political
liberalism necessary, fascists condemned this doctrine for placing the
rights of the individual above the needs of the Volk, encouraging
“divisiveness” (i.e., political pluralism), tolerating “decadent”
values, and limiting the power of the state. Fascists accused liberal
“fellow travelers” of wittingly or unwittingly abetting communism. In
1935 the Cross of Fire berated “moderates”—i.e., democratic
conservatives—for indirectly aiding the communists through their taste
for “compromise and hesitation.” La Rocque urged the French people to
stand up against revolution and its “sordid ally” moderation, warning
that, on the final day of reckoning, complicit moderates—“guardians
unfaithful to their charge”—would be “at the head of the list of the
guilty.”
Fascist propagandists also attacked cultural liberalism, claiming that
it encouraged moral relativism, godless materialism, and selfish
individualism and thereby undermined traditional morality. Anti-
Semitic fascists associated liberalism with Jews in particular—indeed,
one precursor of Nazism, the political theorist Theodor Fritsch,
claimed that to succumb to a liberal idea was to succumb to the Jew
within oneself.
Common characteristics of fascist movements » Totalitarian ambitions
Although Hitler had not revealed the full extent of his totalitarian
aims before he came to power, as Führer (“Leader”) of the Third Reich,
he attempted not only to control all political power but also to
dominate many institutions and organizations that were previously
independent of the state, such as courts, churches, universities,
social clubs, veterans groups, sports associations, and youth groups.
Even the German family came under assault, as members of the Hitler
Youth were told that it was their patriotic duty to inform on anti-
Nazi parents. In Italy, Mussolini adopted the title of duce
(“leader”), and his regime created billboards displaying slogans such
as “The Duce is always right” (Il Duce ha sempre ragione) and
“Believe, obey, fight” (Credere, obbedire, combattere). It should be
noted that, despite their considerable efforts in this direction,
neither Hitler nor Mussolini succeeded in creating a completely
totalitarian regime. Indeed, both regimes were riven by competing and
heterogeneous power groups (which Hitler and Mussolini played off
against each other), and the Fascists in Italy were significantly
limited by the wishes of traditional elites, including the Catholic
church.
Before fascists came to power, however, they often disavowed
totalitarian aims. This was especially true in countries such as
France, where conservatives were alarmed by reports of the repression
of dissident conservatives in Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany. After
Hitler’s crackdown on Roman Catholic dissidents in Germany in 1934 and
1935, French fascists took pains to deny that they were totalitarians,
lest they alienate potential Catholic supporters in France. Indeed,
they attacked “statism” and advocated a more decentralized government
that would favour local economic elites. However, La Rocque’s claim in
1936 that he supported republican liberties did not prevent him in
1941 from demanding “unanimity” under Pétain and a purge of
practitioners of Freemasonry from all government departments.
Common characteristics of fascist movements » Conservative economic
programs
There were a few, usually small, fascist movements whose social and
economic goals were left or left-centrist. Hendrik de Man in Belgium
and Marcel Déat in France, both former socialists, were among those
who hoped eventually to achieve a fairer distribution of wealth by
appealing to fascist nationalism and class conciliation. In Poland the
Camp of National Radicalism (Oboz Narodowo-Raykalny) supported land
reform and the nationalization of industry, and fascists in Libya and
Syria advocated Arab socialism. In Japan, Kita Ikki, an early theorist
of Japanese fascism, called for the nationalization of large
industries, a limited degree of worker control, and a modern welfare
program for the poor.
However, the economic programs of the great majority of fascist
movements were extremely conservative, favouring the wealthy far more
than the middle class and the working class. Their talk of national
“socialism” was quite fraudulent in this respect. Although some
workers were duped by it before the fascists came to power, most
remained loyal to the traditional antifascist parties of the left. As
historian John Weiss noted, “Property and income distribution and the
traditional class structure remained roughly the same under fascist
rule. What changes there were favored the old elites or certain
segments of the party leadership.” Historian Roger Eatwell concurred:
“If a revolution is understood to mean a significant shift in class
relations, including a redistribution of income and wealth, there was
no Nazi revolution.”
Mussolini, a leading member of the Italian Socialist Party (Partito
Socialista Italiano) before World War I, became a fierce antisocialist
after the war. After coming to power, he banned all Marxist
organizations and replaced their trade unions with government-
controlled corporatist unions. Until he instituted a war economy in
the mid-1930s, Mussolini allowed industrialists to run their companies
with a minimum of government interference. Despite his former
anticapitalist rhetoric, he cut taxes on business, permitted cartel
growth, decreed wage reduction, and rescinded the eight-hour-workday
law. Between 1928 and 1932 real wages in Italy dropped by almost half.
Mussolini admitted that the standard of living had fallen but stated
that “fortunately the Italian people were not accustomed to eating
much and therefore feel the privation less acutely than others.”
Although Hitler claimed that the Nazi Party was more “socialist” than
its conservative rivals, he opposed any Marxist-inspired
nationalization of major industries. On May 2, 1933, he abolished all
free trade unions in Germany, and his minister of labour, Robert Ley,
later declared that it was necessary “to restore absolute leadership
to the natural leader of the factory, that is, the employer.” Nazi
“anticapitalism,” such as it was, was aimed primarily at Jewish
capitalism; non-Jewish capitalists were allowed to keep their
companies and their wealth, a distinction that was made in the Nazi
Party’s original program and never changed. Although Hitler reduced
unemployment in Germany, most German workers were forced to toil for
lower wages and longer hours and under worse conditions than had been
the case during the Weimar Republic. His solution to the unemployment
problem also depended on the recruitment of thousands of men into the
military.
Common characteristics of fascist movements » Corporatism
The fascist economic theory corporatism called for organizing each of
the major sectors of industry, agriculture, the professions, and the
arts into state- or management-controlled trade unions and employer
associations, or “corporations,” each of which would negotiate labour
contracts and working conditions and represent the general interests
of their professions in a larger assembly of corporations, or
“corporatist parliament.” Corporatist institutions would replace all
independent organizations of workers and employers, and the
corporatist parliament would replace, or at least exist alongside,
traditional representative and legislative bodies. In theory, the
corporatist model represented a “third way” between capitalism and
communism, allowing for the harmonious cooperation of workers and
employers for the good of the nation as a whole. In practice, fascist
corporatism was used to destroy labour movements and suppress
political dissent. In 1936, for example, the economic program of the
French Social Party included shorter working hours and vacations with
pay for “loyal” workers but not for “disloyal” ones, and benefits were
to be assigned by employers, not the government. The Nazi “Strength
Through Joy” program, which provided subsidies for vacations and other
leisure activities for workers, operated on similar principles.
Extensive corporatist legislation was passed in Italy beginning in the
late 1920s, creating several government-controlled unions and
outlawing strikes. The Salazar regime in Portugal, using the Italian
legislation as its model, outlawed the Trade Union Federation and all
leftist unions, made corporatist unions compulsory for workers, and
declared strikes illegal—all of which contributed to a decline in real
wages. Croatian, Russian, Argentine, Brazilian, and Chilean fascism
also proposed corporatist solutions to labour-management strife.
Common characteristics of fascist movements » Alleged equality of
social status
In the political discourse of the fascist right, economic problems
related to large disparities of wealth between rich and poor were
treated as problems of social status and class prejudice. Rather than
attacking upper-class wealth, fascists attacked upper-class snobbism.
Rather than narrowing class differences, they taught that these
differences were subjective and unimportant. National “socialism” was
said to occur when a Hitler Youth from a rich family and a Hitler
Youth from a poor family became comrades; no wealth had to be shared.
This conception of socialism was in part an outgrowth of the Nazis’
attempt to transfer military values to civilian life: In war it did
not matter if the soldier next to you came from a poor or a wealthy
background as long as he fought loyally for the combat unit.
Common characteristics of fascist movements » Imperialism
Many fascist movements had imperialistic aims. Hitler hoped that his
Drang nach Osten (“drive toward the east”), by conquering eastern
Europe and Russia, would not only prove the racial superiority of
Aryans over Slavs but also provide enough plunder and Lebensraum
(“living space”) to overcome continuing economic difficulties at home.
Mussolini’s imperial ambitions were directed at North Africa, and his
armies invaded Ethiopia in 1935. Polish fascists advocated retaking
all the lands that had ever been ruled by Polish kings, including East
Prussia. Finnish fascists wanted to create a “Greater Finland” at the
expense of Russia, and Croatian fascists advocated a “Greater Croatia”
at the expense of Serbia. Japanese fascists preached military conquest
on behalf of their plan for a “Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity
Sphere.” French fascists were strong defenders of the French empire in
Indochina and North Africa, and during the interwar period they
attracted considerable support among the ruling European minority
(colons) in Algeria. Portuguese fascists waged colonial wars in
Guinea, Angola, and Mozambique. Syrian, Iraqi, and Egyptian fascist
movements also supported territorial expansionism. However, there were
some “peace fascisms” that were not imperialistic, such as the
Integralist Action movement in Brazil.
Common characteristics of fascist movements » Military values
Fascists favoured military values such as courage, unquestioning
obedience to authority, discipline, and physical strength. They also
adapted the outward trappings of military organizations, such as
paramilitary uniforms and Roman salutes. Hitler imagined a God who
presided over military conflicts and ensured the survival of the
fittest. Mussolini was famous for slogans such as “A minute on the
battlefield is worth a lifetime of peace,” “Better to live an hour
like a lion than a hundred years like a sheep,” and “Nothing has ever
been won in history without bloodshed.” Similarly, a pamphlet
published by the Japanese War Ministry in 1934 declared: “War is the
father of creation and the mother of culture.” The songs of Spanish
Falangists extolled the nobility of death in war. Like many fascists,
the French writer Pierre Drieu La Rochelle, author of the fascist
novel Gilles, prided himself on his “tough-minded” realism, which
accepted killing as a principle of nature. La Rocque’s organization,
originally a war veterans’ movement, prided itself on the martial
“spirit of the Cross of Fire,” and its spokesmen made nefarious
comparisons between “virile” combat soldiers and “decadent” civilian
politicians.
Common characteristics of fascist movements » Volksgemeinschaft
Hitler envisioned the ideal German society as a Volksgemeinschaft, a
racially unified and hierarchically organized body in which the
interests of individuals would be strictly subordinate to those of the
nation, or Volk. Like a military battalion, the people’s community
would be permanently prepared for war and would accept the discipline
that this required. The Italian, French, and Spanish versions of this
doctrine, known as “integral nationalism,” were similarly illiberal,
though not racist. The Japanese version, known as the “family-system
principle,” maintained that the nation is like a family: it is strong
only when the people obey their leaders in the same way children obey
their parents.
Common characteristics of fascist movements » Mass mobilization
Fascists characteristically attempted to win popular support and
consolidate their power by mobilizing the population in mass meetings,
parades, and other gatherings. Exploiting principles borrowed from
modern American advertising, which stressed the importance of
appealing to the audience’s emotions rather than to its reason,
fascists used such gatherings to create patriotic fervour and to
encourage fanatic enthusiasm for the fascist cause. The Nazi rallies
at Nürnberg, for example, were organized with theatrical precision and
featured large banners, paramilitary uniforms, martial music,
torchlight parades, bonfires, and forests of fascist salutes
accompanied by prompted shouts of “Sieg Heil!” Hitler believed it best
to hold such gatherings at night, when audiences would be more
susceptible than in the daytime to irrational appeals. Fascists also
sought to regiment the population, especially young people, by
infiltrating local social networks—tavern groups and veteran, sports,
church, student, and other organizations—and providing soup kitchens,
vacation outings, and nationalistic ceremonies for townspeople. In
France, La Rocque’s French Social Party dispensed meals to the
unemployed and offered workers access to swimming pools, social clubs,
and vacation grounds in order to entice them into the movement.
Mussolini’s regime in Italy and Salazar’s government in Portugal also
held government-organized mass rallies. After 1936 Japanese fascists
paid less attention to mass mobilization than to working directly with
the nation’s elites. The dictatorship that followed was based on a
coalition of military leaders, industrialists, state bureaucrats, and
conservative party politicians.
Common characteristics of fascist movements » The leadership principle
Fascists defended the Führerprinzip (“leadership principle”), the
belief that the party and the state should have a single leader with
absolute power. Hitler was the Führer and Mussolini the Duce, both
words for the “leader” who gave the orders that everyone else had to
obey. The authority of the leader was often enhanced by his personal
charisma.
The leadership principle was also conceived to apply at lower levels
of the political and social hierarchy. Fascist organizations sometimes
exhibited the so-called “corporal syndrome,” in which persons
willingly submit to the authority of those above them in exchange for
the gratification they derive from dominating those below. Japanese
fascists believed that owners of stores and workshops should exercise
“paternal” authority over their assistants, clerks, workers, servants,
and tenants. Subordinates were not permitted to organize themselves
into unions, and the small bosses assumed the leadership of town and
village councils. As historian Masao Maruyama notes, this mind-set
affected the way many Japanese shop masters viewed their nation’s
foreign policy in the 1930s: “The resistance of the East Asian peoples
to Japanese imperialism aroused the same psychological reactions among
them as the resistance of their subordinates in the shops, workplaces,
and other groups under their control. Thus they became the most ardent
supporters of the China Incident [the Mukden Incident (1931), in which
Japanese troops seized the Manchurian city of Mukden] and the Pacific
War.”
Common characteristics of fascist movements » The “new man”
Fascists aimed to transform the ordinary man into the “new man,” a
“virile” being who would put decadent bourgeoisie, cerebral Marxists,
and “feminine” liberals to shame. The new man would be physically
strong and morally “hard,” admiring what was forceful and vigorous and
despising everything “weak” and “soft.” As Hitler described him, the
new man was “slim and slender, quick like a greyhound, tough like
leather, and hard like Krupp steel.” The new man was a man of the past
as well as the future. Italian fascists held up the soldiers of
ancient Rome as models, and Bertrand de Jouvenel praised the “brutal
barons” of the Middle Ages and the original conquerors of Europe, the
Franks. “Fascist man,” he wrote, was “a throwback to the warrior and
property holder of yesteryear, to the type of man who was the head of
a family and a clan: When this type of man ceases to win esteem and
disappears, then the process of decadence begins.”
Drieu La Rochelle believed Hitlerian man to be superior to Democratic
man, Marxist man, and Liberal man. “The Hitlerian,” he wrote, “is a
type who rejects culture, who stands firm in the middle of sexual and
alcoholic depravity and who dreams of bringing to the world a physical
discipline with radical effects.” The new man was also a Darwinian
“realist” who was contemptuous of “delicate” souls who refused to
employ harsh military or political measures when they were required.
During World War II, in a speech to an SS unit that had executed many
Jews, SS chief Heinrich Himmler reminded his “new men” that they
needed to be emotionally as well as physically hard: “Most of you know
what it means when 100 corpses are piled up, when 500 or 1,000 are
piled there. To have gone through this and—with exceptions due to
weakness—to have remained decent, that is what has made us hard. I
have to expect of you superhuman acts of inhumanity.…We have no right
to be weak.…[Our men] must never be soft. They must grit their teeth
and do their duty.”
Common characteristics of fascist movements » Glorification of youth
Fascists praised the young for their physical strength and honoured
them for their idealism and spirit of self-sacrifice—qualities, they
said, that were often lacking in their elders. Fascists often
presented their cause in generational terms. As the young Goebbels
declared, “The old ones don’t even want to understand that we young
people even exist. They defend their power to the last. But one day
they will be defeated after all. Youth finally must be victorious.” De
Jouvenel described fascism as a “revolution of the body” that
reflected youth’s hunger for discipline, effort, combat, and courage.
The young, who loved “strong and slender bodies, vigorous and sure
movements, [and] short sentences,” consequently detested middle-aged,
pot-bellied liberals and café verbosity.
Partly because they made concerted appeals to young people, fascist
parties tended to have younger members than most other rightist
parties. The leadership of the Nazi Party, for example, was relatively
young, and junior officers in the German army often went over to
fascism sooner than senior officers. Corneliu Codreanu, leader of the
Iron Guard in Romania, was only 31 when he founded the movement in
1930, and his major lieutenants were in their 20s. Similarly, Primo de
Rivera was only 30 when he founded the Falange, and in 1936, 60 to 70
percent of his followers were under 21.
Common characteristics of fascist movements » Education as character
building
Fascist educators emphasized character building over intellectual
growth, devalued the transmission of information, inculcated blind
obedience to authority, and discouraged critical and independent
thinking that challenged fascist ideology. According to Nazi writer
Herman Klaus, the teacher “is not just an instructor and transmitter
of knowledge.…He is a soldier, serving on the cultural and political
front of National Socialism. For intellectuals belong to the people or
they are nothing.” The ultimate aim of Nazi education was not to make
students think more richly but to make them war more vigorously. As
the Nazi minister of culture in Prussia wrote, “The National Socialist
revolution has replaced the image of the cultivated personality with
the reality of the true German man. It has substituted for the
humanistic conception of culture a system of education which develops
out of the fellowship of actual battle.” Teachers who did not practice
these principles or who appeared skeptical of Nazi “idealism” were
subject to dismissal, often as a result of reports by student
informers.
Common characteristics of fascist movements » Decadence and
spirituality
Some of the ugliest aspects of fascism—intolerance, repression, and
violence—were fueled by what fascists saw as a morally justified
struggle against “decadence.” For fascists, decadence meant a number
of things: materialism, self-indulgence, hedonism, cowardice, and
physical and moral softness. It was also associated with rationalism,
skepticism, atheism, humanitarianism, and political, economic, and
gender democracy, as well as rule by the Darwinian unfit, by the weak
and the “female.” For anti-Semitic fascists, Jews were the most
decadent of all.
The opposite of decadence was “spirituality,” which transcended
materialism and generated self-discipline and virility. The spiritual
attitude involved a certain emotional asceticism that enabled one to
avoid feelings of pity for one’s victims. It also involved Darwinian
notions of survival of the fittest, a belief in the right of natural
elites to upward social and political mobility, and accommodation with
members of the upper classes. It prized hierarchy, respect for
superiors, and military obedience. It was forceful toward the weak,
and it was “male.” The spiritual attitude was also hateful. In 1934
Ernst Röhm, leader of the SA, worried that Germans had “forgotten how
to hate.” “Virile hate,” he wrote, “has been replaced by feminine
lamentation. But he who is unable to hate cannot love either.
Fanatical love and hate—their fires kindle flames of freedom.” De
Jouvenel agreed: “Any sentiment less vigorous than hatred indicates a
lack of virility.”
Common characteristics of fascist movements » Violence
Fascists reacted to their opponents with physical force. Primo de
Rivera maintained that “no other argument is admissible than that of
fists and pistols when justice or the Fatherland is attacked.” Before
he came to power, Mussolini sent his Blackshirts to assault socialist
organizers throughout Italy, and later he sent many leftists to
prison. Hitler’s storm troopers served a similar function, and Nazi
concentration camps at first interned more Marxists than Jews. Nor
were dissident conservatives spared Nazi violence. Hitler’s infamous
“Blood Purge” of June 1934, in which Röhm and other SA leaders were
summarily executed, also claimed the lives of Kurt von Schleicher, the
last chancellor of the Weimar Republic, and his wife, who were
murdered in their home. To his critics Hitler replied, “People accuse
us of being barbarians; we are barbarians, and we are proud of it!” In
Romania, Codreanu’s “death teams” engaged in brutal strikebreaking,
and, in France, Drieu La Rochelle glorified military and political
violence as healthy antidotes to decadence. Beginning in 1931 Japanese
fascists assassinated a number of important political figures, but in
1936, after a government crackdown, they renounced such tactics. In
the United States in the 1920s and ’30s, the Ku Klux Klan and other
groups sought to intimidate African Americans with cross burnings,
beatings, and lynchings.
Common characteristics of fascist movements » Extreme nationalism
Whereas cosmopolitan conservatives often supported international
cooperation and admired elite culture in other countries, fascists
espoused extreme nationalism and cultural parochialism. Fascist
ideologues taught that national identity was the foundation of
individual identity and should not be corrupted by foreign influences,
especially if they were left-wing. Nazism condemned Marxist and
liberal internationalisms as threats to German national unity.
Fascists in general wanted to replace internationalist class
solidarity with nationalist class collaboration. The Italian, French,
and Spanish notion of integral nationalism was hostile to
individualism and political pluralism. Unlike democratic
conservatives, fascists accused their political opponents of being
less “patriotic” than they, sometimes even labeling them “traitors.”
Portuguese fascists spoke of “internal foreigners” who were
“antination.” In the 1930s some French fascist organizations even
rejected the label “fascist,” lest they be perceived as beholden to
Germany.
In France, immigrants—particularly left-wing immigrants—were special
targets of fascist nationalism. Jean Renaud of French Solidarity
demanded that all foreigners seeking residence in France be rigorously
screened and that the unfit be denied entry “without pity”—especially
social revolutionaries, who made France “not a refuge for the
oppressed but a depository for trash.” In 1935 La Rocque blamed Hitler
for driving German refugees into France and condemned the “foolish
sentimentality” that prompted the government to accept them. He also
criticized France’s naturalization policies for allowing cities like
Marseille and Paris to be inundated by a rising tide of
“undesirables.” France, he declared, had become the shepherd of “a
swarming, virulent mob of outlaws,” some of whom, under the pretext of
fleeing Nazi persecution, were really infiltrating France as spies.
Common characteristics of fascist movements » Scapegoating
Fascists often blamed their countries’ problems on scapegoats. Jews,
Freemasons, Marxists, and immigrants were prominent among the groups
that were demonized. According to fascist propaganda, the long
depression of the 1930s resulted less from insufficient government
regulation of the economy or inadequate lower-class purchasing power
than from “Judeo-Masonic-bolshevik” conspiracies, left-wing agitation,
and the presence of immigrants. The implication was that depriving
these demons of their power and influence would cause the nation’s
major problems to go away.
Common characteristics of fascist movements » Populism
Fascists praised the Volk and pandered to populist anti-
intellectualism. Nazi art criticism, for example, upheld the populist
view that the common man was the best judge of art and that art that
did not appeal to popular taste was decadent. Also populist was the
Nazi propaganda theme that Hitler was a “new man” who had “emerged
from the depth of the people.” Unlike left-wing populism, fascist
populism did not attribute workers’ hardships to big business and big
landowners and did not advocate measures such as progressive taxation,
higher pay for industrial and farm workers, protection of unions, and
the right to strike. In general it spared the wealth of the upper
classes—except that belonging to Jews.
Common characteristics of fascist movements » Revolutionary image
Fascists sometimes portrayed their movements as “new” and
“revolutionary,” an image that appealed not just to the young but to
older literary modernists such as Filippo Marinetti, T.S. Eliot, Ezra
Pound, Wyndham Lewis, William Butler Yeats, D.H. Lawrence, and Paul de
Man. However, dozens of fascist writers also praised cultural
traditionalism, or “rootedness.” Under the Third Reich, Goebbels
subsidized an exhibition of modern art not to celebrate its glory but
to expose its decadence; he called it simply the “Exhibition of
Degenerate Art.” Fascism’s claims to newness did not prevent its
propagandists from pandering to fearful traditionalists who associated
cultural modernism with secular humanism, feminism, sexual license,
and the destruction of the Christian family.
Common characteristics of fascist movements » Antiurbanism
Fascists also pandered to antiurban feelings. The Nazis won most of
their electoral support from rural areas and small towns. In Nazi
propaganda the ideal German was not an urban intellectual but a simple
peasant, and uprooted intellectualism was considered a threat to the
deep, irrational sources of the Volk soul. Jews were often portrayed—
and therefore condemned—as quintessential city dwellers. In 1941 La
Rocque commented: “The theory of ‘families of good stock who have
their roots in the earth’ leads us to conclusions not far from [those
of] Walter Darre, Minister of Agriculture for the Reich.” Romanian
fascism relied heavily on the support of landed peasants who
distrusted the “wicked” city. The agrarian wing of Japanese fascism
praised the peasant soldier and denigrated the industrial worker.
Under fascist regimes women were urged to perform their traditional
gender role as wives and mothers and to bear many children for the
nation. Mussolini instituted policies severely restricting women’s
access to jobs outside the home (policies that later had to be revised
to meet wartime exigencies), and he distributed gold medals to mothers
who produced the most children. In Germany the Nazis forbade female
party members from giving orders to male members. In a speech in 1937,
Charles Vallin, vice president of the French Social Party, equated
feminists with insubordinate proletarians: “It is not with class
struggle that the social question will be resolved. Yet, it is toward
a sort of class struggle, opposing the feminine ‘proletariat’ to the
masculine ‘capitalist,’ that feminism is leading us.”
De Jouvenel equated women with hedonism and hedonism with decadence.
Europe, he wrote in 1938, had grown soft and feminine from pleasure
seeking, becoming “like a woman who had just escaped a frightening
accident. [She] needed light, warmth, music.” According to de
Jouvenel, an atmosphere of “facility” corrupted everything, and people
had become increasingly unwilling to take on painful tasks. In short,
he believed the feminization of Europe had been its downfall. In a
similar vein, Drieu La Rochelle claimed that educated women undermined
his manhood. He characterized political movements he disliked as
feminine and those he admired as masculine—fascism, for him, being the
most masculine of all.
Nickname unavailable
> No quote i see , but Fascism is Socialism.
Fascism, Naziism and Conservatism
European fascism drew on existing anti-modernist conservatism, and on
the conservative reaction to communism and 19th-century socialism.
Conservative thinkers such as historian Oswald Spengler provided much
of the world view (Weltanschauung) of the Nazi movement.
In Britain, the conservative Daily Mail enthusiastically backed Sir
Oswald Mosley's British Union of Fascists, and part of the
Conservative Party supported closer ties with Nazi Germany.
When
defeat in World War II ideologically and historically discredited
fascism, almost all Western conservatives tried to distance
themselves
from it. Nevertheless, many post-war Western conservatives
continued
to admire the Franco regime in Spain, clearly conservative
but also
fascist in origin. With the end of the Franco regime and
Portugal's
Estado Novo in the 1970s, the relationship between
conservatism and
classical European fascism was further weakened.
Militarism is perhaps the most striking similarity between Fascism
and
contemporary American conservatism. Of course, there are many
liberals
in America who support the military and even call for
increased
military spending.
Even so, American liberals are traditionally more skeptical of the
military than American conservatives. It is often said that
Neoconservatives, like Hitler, see the military as a paradigm for
problem solving (even in situations that may render militarism
impractical or unethical).
The relationship of fascism to right-wing ideologies (including some
that are described as neo-fascist) is still an issue for
conservatives
and their opponents. Especially in Germany, there is a
constant
exchange of ideology and persons, between the influential
national-
conservative movement, and self-identified national-
socialist groups.
In Italy too, there is no clear line between
conservatives, and
movements inspired by the Italian Fascism of the
1920s to 1940s,
including the Alleanza Nazionale which is member of
the governing
coalition under premier Silvio Berlusconi. Conservative
attitudes to
the 20th-century fascist regimes are still an issue.
Under an ideological definition of Socialism, for example one stating
that only a system adhering to the principles of Marxism can qualify
as socialist there is a well-defined gap between Nazism and
socialism.
Nazi leaders were opposed to the Marxist idea of class
conflict and
opposed the idea that capitalism should be abolished and
that workers
should control the means of production. For those who
consider class
conflict and the abolition of capitalism as essential
components of
socialism, these factors alone are sufficient to
categorize "National
Socialism" as non-socialist.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
here is the economic lunacy of conservative economics that opened the
door to the ultra conservative hitler:to restore economic equilibrium
by a balanced budget, high interest rates and remaining on the gold
standard -- no emergency deficit spending. And the economy continued
to slide
http://fsmitha.com/h2/ch16.htm
home | world news | 1901-World War II | Dr. Joseph Paul Goebbels
Hitler takes Power
Hitler Appointed Chancellor
In 1927, German manufacturing was at its postwar high: twenty-two
percent above what it had been in 1913. In September 1928 Germany had
650,000 unemployed. In the wake of the great fall of prices on the
U.S. stockmarket, lenders from the U.S. gave Germany ninety days to
start repayment. By September 1930 Germany's unemployment had risen to
3,000,000. By 1930 Germany's manufacturing had fallen seventeen
percent from that 1927 level. [note] Bankruptcies were increasing,.
Farmers were hurting. Some in the middleclass feared sliding into the
lower class. And some in the middleclass blamed the economic decline
on unemployed people being unwilling to work -- while hunger was
widespread.
Paul Kennedy, The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers, p. 299.
According to Stalinist dogma, a crisis in capitalism and its attendant
suffering was supposed to produce a rise in class consciousness among
working people and to advance revolution. The Communist Party in
Germany did find a little more support, but, rather than Germany
moving to the kind of revolution that Communists yearned for, Hitler
and the fascists, campaigning against Communism, were gaining
strength.
In 1930 the parliamentary coalition that governed Germany fell apart,
and new elections were held. The biggest winner in these elections was
Adolf Hitler's National Socialist Party. From twelve seats in
parliament they increased their seats to 107, becoming Germany's
second largest political party. The largest party was still the Social
Democrats, and this party won 143 seats and 24.5 percent of the vote.
Communist Party candidates won 13.1 percent of the vote (roughly 50
times better than the U.S. Communist Party did in 1932 elections), and
together the Social Democrats and the Communists were large enough to
claim the right to make a government. But Communists and the Social
Democrats remained hostile toward one another. The Comintern at this
time was opposed to Communists working with reformers, and the
Communists believed that a collapse of parliamentary government would
hasten the revolutionary crisis that would propel them to power.
Instead of a left-of-center, socialist government, the president of
the German republic, Hindenburg, selected Heinrich Brüning of the
Catholic Center Party to form a government. This Party had received
only 11.3 percent of the vote - less than the Communists. And Brüning
did not have the majority parliamentary support needed to rule. As
chancellor, Brüning ruled under Hindenburg's emergency powers. It was
the beginning of the end of democracy in Germany, with Hindenburg
willing to do anything but give the government back to the Socialists.
Brüning attempted to restore economic equilibrium by a balanced
budget, high interest rates and remaining on the gold standard -- no
emergency deficit spending. And the economy continued to slide.
Hitler, meanwhile, was looking good to many Germans because he seemed
to be a man who believed in something and wanted radical change that
differed from the alternatives offered by the Socialists and
Communists. Hitler appeared to be truly devoted to Germany. He was. He
was a sincere nationalist and, in addition to being obsessed by what
he saw as enemies within Germany, and foreign enemies, he identified
with Germans in the abstract. He loved innocent children and those
adults who supported him -- in his eyes real Germans.
Hitler found his greatest support in traditionally conservative small
towns. He campaigned with attacks on Marxism, making it clear that by
Marxism he meant the Social Democrats. Hitler appealed to morality,
attacking free love and what he inferred was the immorality of Berlin
and some other major cities. He promised to stamp out big city
corruption. He called for a spiritual revolution, for a "positive
Christianity" and a spirit of national pride. Hitler repeatedly called
for national renewal. He and his National Socialists benefited from
the recent upheaval in the Soviet Union and the rise in fear and
disgust for Bolshevism. His party's posters read:
If you want your country to go Bolshevik, vote Communist. If you want
to remain free Germans, vote for the National Socialists.
Hitler called for a strengthened Germany and a refusal to pay
reparations. He promised to restore Germany's borders. He appeared to
be for the common man and critical of Germany's "barons." To the
unemployed he promised jobs and bread. His party had the appeal of
being young and on the move. Disillusioned communists joined his
movement, as did many unemployed young men and a variety of
malcontents. In addition to finding support in small towns, he found
support among the middleclass. He found support too from some among
the newly rich and among some aristocrats. He found support among a
few industrialists and financiers who wished for lower taxes and the
arrest of the labor movement. From wealthy contributors, Hitler was
able to set up places where unemployed young men could get a hot meal
and trade their shabby clothes for a storm trooper uniform.
Hitler's call for more territory for Germany did not win him many
votes, for the country was in no mood to consider adventures and
risking war. Appeals to anti-Semitism had not been much help to
conservative candidates before the depression, and conservative
governments after the arrival of the depression were making no moves
to rescind the rights of Jews. But Hitler's continued verbal attacks
on Jews had some appeal. Not one prominent industry in Germany had a
Jew as an owner or director, but Hitler continued to hammer away at
what he described as the Jewish aspect of capitalism, appealing to
those who believed the myths about Jews and believed in the socialism
of his National Socialist German Workers Party.
The depression had been worsening in Germany, and in 1932 unemployment
reached thirty percent -- 5,102,000 in September of that year.
Hindenburg's seven-year term as president ended that year, and at age
84 Hindenburg ran for re-election, his major opponent for the
presidency -- Adolf Hitler. Neither Hindenburg nor Hitler won a
majority, and in the runoff campaign Hindenburg won 19.4 million to
Hitler's 11.4. But in the parliamentary elections held later that
April, the National Socialists increased their seats from 107 to 162,
the National Socialists becoming the largest political party in
Germany. Hitler had lost the election for the presidency, but his
campaigning had paid off.
Hindenburg had become dissatisfied with his present chancellor,
Brüning, and the hunt was on for a new chancellor. Brüning still
lacked the parliamentary majority needed for democratic rule, and
without Hindenburg's support, he was forced to resign. His last act as
chancellor was to put a ban on Hitler's street force: Hitler's storm
troopers, also known as the S.A. or the Brown Shirts.
The aristocratic Hindenburg disliked Hitler, seeing him as a rabble-
rouser of working class types and believing that the Nationalist
Socialists were indeed socialists. He was not about to select Hitler
as his new chancellor, while his aide, Kurt von Schleicher, was having
difficulty putting together a governing coalition of national unity.
Giving up on national unity, Schleicher put together a cabinet that
was largely of aristocrats -- to be known as "the cabinet of barons" -
with himself as minister of defense and Franz von Papen as chancellor.
It was another government that lacked a parliamentary majority, and it
was unpopular across Germany. But the new government did have at least
one success in foreign affairs: the cancellation of Germany's
obligation to make reparations payments.
The crisis over establishing a government with a parliamentary
majority continued, and in late July, 1932, another parliamentary
election was held. The results hurt the middleclass and middle-road
political parties, and the National Socialists increased their seats
in parliament still more -- to 230 of a total of 670 seats. The number
of seats for the Communists rose to 89. Schleicher believed that it
was necessary to form a government that included National Socialists,
and Hitler was buoyed by the thought that he was on the verge of being
selected as chancellor. When parliament opened in September, the
National Socialists, seeking a government led by Hitler, organized a
vote against the Papen government, and von Papen responded by
dissolving parliament, with new elections scheduled for November.
In the November elections, the Communists won seventeen percent of the
vote, and their number of seats in parliament rose to 100, while
Hitler's National Socialists lost 34 seats. This drop shocked the
National Socialists, who believed, with some others, that their
movement might have lost its momentum. Also the National Socialists
were in debt from all their campaigning -- Hitler having borrowed
money extravagantly for his campaigns, believing he could pay it back
easily if he won and that the loans did not matter if he lost.
Discouraged financial backers began withdrawing their support from the
National Socialists, and opportunistic party activists began leaving
the party. Hitler was alarmed, and there was talk that some who were
leaving the National Socialists were going over to that other party of
revolution -- the Communists.
Schleicher was alarmed by the growth of support for the Communists. He
forced von Papen's resignation. Papen was irritated with Schleicher
and, buoyed by the decline of the National Socialists, he hit on the
idea of heading a coalition that included the National Socialists,
believing that he and other respectable conservatives in his cabinet
could control the humbled National Socialist party. Schleicher formed
an emergency government and tried to put together a coalition of many
political parties, including some National Socialists that he hoped to
split away from Hitler. Schleicher hoped to win the support of both
moderate socialists and conservatives, but the reforms that he hoped
would appeal to the moderate socialists were rejected by
conservatives, and Schleicher's coalition failed to hold together. The
unwillingness of these conservatives to compromise was paving the way
for Adolf Hitler, as other compromises were in the offing.
Hitler refused the proposal from von Papen that he, Hitler, be
anything but the head of a new government, and Papen went to
Hindenburg and proposed a government with Hitler as chancellor and
himself as vice-chancellor, with the majority of the cabinet to be
conservatives from von Papen's Nationalist Party. Hitler met with some
right-wing industrialists, reassuring them of his respect for private
property. He told them that democracy led to socialism and that he
would curb socialism and the socialist-led labor unions. The
industrialists liked what Hitler told them, and, in January 1933,
Hindenburg gave power to Hitler and his new coalition -- the
conservatives with Papen still believing that they would be able to
control Hitler.
Chancellor Hitler Acquires Emergency Powers
Hitler won from Hindenburg approval for yet more parliamentary
elections in the coming weeks, on the grounds that his government did
not have majority support in parliament. Hitler's lieutenant, Herman
Goering (Göring), was put in charge of the police, and in late
February came the fire at the parliament building set by Hitler's men
but attributed to a Communist plot to make revolution. A good portion
of the German people bought the story. Communists were arrested and
taken away to prison. The elections were held in the crisis atmosphere
created by the parliament building (Reichstag) fire, and the National
Socialists won 43.9 percent of the vote -- another indication that
nothing succeeds like success.
To win emergency powers, Hitler needed a two-thirds vote of approval
from parliament. With his new numbers in parliament and the support of
conservative and middle-road politicians, he won his two-thirds. The
only party to oppose the emergency powers (the Enabling Act) was the
Social Democrats. The Communists, whose votes would have prevented a
two-thirds majority were not present. They had been arrested.
Armed with emergency powers, Hitler now moved against the Social
Democrats and their trade unions. In May and June their headquarters
were occupied. They were declared illegal and enemies of the people
and the state. More Communists were arrested and imprisoned, along
with socialists, liberals and trade unionists -- all those deemed by
the Hitler regime as dangerous Leftists. The first concentration camps
appeared, to number about fifty by the end of the year, some of them
established by Himmler's SS and some by the Brown Shirts (the S.A.).
Despite the continued German proclivity toward order and legality, a
few of the political prisoners were murdered, and some graft appeared
as a few were ransomed to relatives or friends.
The spirit arose for a revival of what National Socialists called
German culture. On May 10, 1933, students caught up in the National
Socialist spirit tossed 20,000 or so books onto a bonfire outside of
the University of Berlin - as Hitler's propaganda minister, Joseph
Goebbels, watched with elation. Among the books burned were those
written by H.G. Wells, Havelock Ellis, Sigmund Freud, Prouse, Emile
Zola, André Gide, Upton Sinclair, Helen Keller, Margaret Sanger, Jack
London and the German author of All Quiet On The Western Front, Erich
Maria Remarque. As the fire subsided Goebbels spoke to the crowd,
saying that "these flames not only illuminate the final end of an old
era; they also light up the new."
On July 20, Monsignor Pacelli, Papal Nuncio (later Pius XII) and Vice-
Chancellor Papen signed a Concordat. Papen was the right man for that
job. He was a respected and civilized man and a devout Roman Catholic.
Hitler wanted respectability and leverage with the Germany Catholic
Center Party. Hitler was still appealing to Christians, having
recently proclaimed that "we demand freedom for all religious
beliefs," and he had recently proclaimed that Christianity was "the
basis of our collective morals," the basis of the family and "the
kernel of our people." Pope Pius XI saw Communism as the greatest
danger in the world, and he saw the Hitler-Papen government as a
bulwark against Communism, atheism and attendant evils, including the
destruction of civilization. He too did not have the hindsight that
would come later. And for the Church the Concordant was practical
business. In signing the Concordant, the Church acquired a guarantee
of the right to regulate its own affairs in Germany, including
continuing its confessional schools.
Also in July, a law was passed against the formation of new political
parties - for the sake of the unity of the German people. Later that
year, Jews were excluded from holding public office, from holding jobs
in the civil service, in journalism, radio, farming, teaching, the
theater, or in Germany's motion picture industry. And those Jews who
were uncomfortable with all this and chose to leave the country had to
pay a departure tax.
On November 11, 1933, the anniversary of the Armistice of 1918, Hitler
spoke of the "honor" that Germany had lost with that armistice.
President Hindenburg that day addressed the nation by radio, and he
told the nation to "support with me and the Reich Chancellor [Hitler]
the principle of equal rights and peace with honor." "With the help of
God," he concluded, " Germany will maintain its unity."
The next day a plebiscite was held across Germany, designed to
underscore the legitimacy of Hitler's government. Ninety-six percent
of the voting public cast their ballots. Ninety-two percent voted
their approval of the single list of National Socialists and a handful
of Nationalists to fill parliament. Some intimidation may have been
involved in the voting, but it is estimated that overall the vote was
a genuine expression of support for Hitler's government.
Germany Recovers from the Depression
Like most other economies, Germany's economy had hit bottom in 1932.
Under Hitler, the strategy for recovery was largely the work of his
economics minister, Hjalmar Schacht, a conservative willing to ignore
free market liberalism. Schacht forbade the sending of money out of
Germany. He reduced foreign trade largely to barter agreements (trade
without money) and he put strict limits on imports - all to keep
wealth within the country. Under Schacht, private industry was
compelled to reinvest its profits in manufacturing approved by the
state. And crucial to Germany's recovery was government spending, much
of it on public works, the most visible of which was a new highway
system -- the autobahn -- which the army wanted for more efficient
movements within Germany. There was also an electrification program,
and government investment in industry. One third of Germany's income
had as its source government payments and investments -- almost three
times the percentage being spent by the U.S. government. And, as in
Sweden, the government debt that Schacht was creating was quickly
offset by the recovery in revenues that came with the rise in the
economy.
Wages and the standard of living remained relatively low for Germans,
but the aim of the government was increased industrial production of
non-consumer goods. Unemployment was falling, and business optimism
returned. In 1935 compulsory labor service was introduced, and
unemployment was reduced further as tax incentives were introduced to
persuade women to leave the labor force, to return to what was
considered traditional for German women: cooking, children and church
attending (küche, kinder und kirche).
Re-armament (in defiance of the Paris Peace Conference) helped boost
Germany's economy, and without independent trade unions, Germany could
keep its wages low and it prices stable. Hitler's economy remained low
in productivity, as there was little incentive, and some
disincentives, to innovate -- the usual incentive for innovation being
high profits, which in Germany were heavily taxed. But by 1935,
Germany's farmers were prospering, and industrial production was above
its 1929 level and rising rapidly. [note] German workers had the
right to try their employers in special courts in order to protect
themselves from abuse. Although their wages were low, German workers
were working and felt more secure. Some were saying that Hitler had
saved them from starvation. The German people were grateful to Hitler
for his having brought economic recovery.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/George_Seldes/Facts_Fascism_TGSR.html
Facts and Fascism
excerpted from the book
The George Seldes Reader
by Randolph T. Holhut
Barricade Books, 1994, paper
[In 1943, Seldes wrote and self-published the book Facts and Fascism
which is the most detailed and documented history on how big business
subsidized fascism. What follows is the opening section of that book
which tells who backed the regimes of Hitler, Mussolini, Franco and
Hirohito and who worked for fascism in America.]
p249
The time will come when people will not believe it was possible
to mobilize 10,800,030 Americans to fight Fascism and not tell them
the truth about the enemy. And yet, this is exactly what happened in
our country in the Global War.
The Office of War Information published millions of words, thousands
of pamphlets, posters and other material, most of it very valuable and
all of it intended to inspire the people and raise the morale of the
soldiers of production and the soldiers of the field; but it is also a
fact that to the date of this writing the OWl did not publish a single
pamphlet, poster, broadside or paper telling either the civilian
population or the men and women in uniform what Fascism really is,
what the forces are behind the political and military movements
generally known as Fascism, who puts up the money, who make the
tremendous profits which Fascism has paid its backers in Germany,
Italy, Japan, Spain and other nations.
Certainly when it comes to relating foreign Fascism with native
American Fascism there is a conspiracy of silence in which the OWl,
the American press, and all the forces of reaction in America are
united. Outside of a few books, a few pamphlets, and a few articles in
the very small independent weekly press which reaches only a few
thousand readers, not one word on this subject has been printed, and
not one word has been heard over any of the big commercial radio
stations.
Faraway Fascism has been attacked, exposed, and denounced by the same
publications (the Saturday Evening Post for example) which for years
ran articles lauding Mussolini and his notable backers in all lands;
and the Hearst newspapers, which published from 1934 to Pearl Harbor
dozens of signed propaganda articles by Dr. Goebbels, Goering and
other Nazis, now call them names, but no publication which takes money
from certain Big Business elements (all of which will be named here)
will dare name the native or nearby Fascists. In many instances the
publications themselves are part of our own Fascism.
But we must not be fooled into believing that American Fascism
consists of a few persons, some crackpots, some mentally perverted, a
few criminals such as George W. Christian and William Pelley, who are
in jail at present, or the 33 indicted for sedition. These are the
lunatic fringes of Fascism; they are also the small fry, the
unimportant figureheads, just as Hitler was before the Big Money in
Germany decided to set him up in business.
The real Fascists of America are never named in the commercial press.
It will not even hint at the fact that there are many powerful
elements working against a greater democracy, against an America
without discrimination based on race, color and creed, an America
where never again will one third of the people be without sufficient
food, clothing and shelter, where never again will there be millions
unemployed and many more millions working for semi-starvation wages
while the DuPont, Ford, Hearst, Mellon and Rockefeller Empires move
into the billions of dollars.
I call these elements Fascist. You may not like names and labels but
technically as well as journalistically and morally they are correct.
You may substitute Tories, or Economic Royalists, or Vested Interests,
or whatever you like for the flag-waving anti-American Americans whose
efforts and objectives parallel those of the Liga Industriale which
bought out
Mussolini in 1920 and the Thyssen-Krupp-Voegeler-Flick Rhineland
industry and banking system which subsidized Hitler when Nazism was
about to collapse. Their main object was to end the civil liberties of
the nation, destroy the labor unions, end the free press, and make
more money at the expense of a slave nation. Both succeeded. And in
America one similar organization (the National Association of
Manufacturers) has already made the following historical record:
1. Organized big business in a movement against labor.
2. Founded the Liberty League to fight civil liberties.
3. Subsidized anti-labor, Fascist and anti-Semitic organizations
(Senator Black's Lobby Investigation).
4. Signed a pact with Nazi agents for political and economic (cartel)
penetration of U. S. (Exposed in In fact.)
5. Founded a $1 million-a-year propaganda outfit to corrupt the press,
radio, schools and churches.
6. Stopped the passage of food, drug and other laws aimed to safeguard
the consumer.
7. Conspired, with DuPont as leader, in September 1942, to sabotage
the war effort in order to maintain profits.
8. Sabotaged the U. S. defense plan in 1940 by refusing to convert the
auto plants and by a sit-down of capital against plant expansion;
sabotaged the oil, aluminum and rubber expansion programs. (If any of
these facts are not known to you it is because 99 percent of our
press, in the pay of the same elements, suppressed the Tolan, Truman,
Bone Committee reports, Thurman Arnold's reports, the TNEC Monopoly
reports and other Government documents.)
9. Delayed the winning of the war through the acts of Dollar-a-year
men looking out for present profits and future monopoly rather than
for the quick defeat of Fascism. (Documented in the labor press for
two years; and again at the 1942 CIO Convention.)
Naturally enough the President of the United States and other high
officials cannot name the men, organizations, pressure lobbyists, and
national associations which have made this and similar records; they
can only refer to "noisy traitors," quislings, defeatists, the
"Cliveden Set" or to the Tories and Economic Royalists. And you may be
certain that our press will never name the defeatists because the same
elements which made the above nine-point record are the main
advertisers and biggest subsidizers of the newspapers and magazines.
In many instances even the general charges by the President himself
have been suppressed. In Germany, in Italy until the seizure of
government by the Fascists, the majority of newspapers were brave
enough to be anti-Fascist, whereas in America strangely enough a large
part of the press (Hearst, Scripps-Howard, McCormickPatterson) has for
years been pro-Fascist and almost all big papers live on the money of
the biggest Tory and reactionary corporations and reflect their
viewpoint now.
It seems to this writer that the most important thing in the world
today next to destroying Fascism on the field of battle, is to fight
Fascism which has not yet taken up the gun.
This other Fascism will become more active-and drape itself in the
national flag everywhere-when military Fascism has been defeated. So
far as America is concerned, its first notable Fascist leader, Huey
Long, a very smart demagogue, once said, "Sure we'll have Fascism
here, but it will come as an anti-Fascist movement."
To know what Fascism really is and why we must fight it and destroy it
here in America, we must first of all know what it is we are fighting,
what the Fascist regimes really are and do, who puts up the money and
backs Fascism in every country (including the United States at this
very moment), and who owns the nations under such regimes, and why the
natives of all Fascist countries must be driven into harder work, less
money, reduced standard of living, poverty and desperation so that the
men and corporations who found, subsidize and own Fascism can grow
unbelievably rich.
This is what has happened in Germany, Italy, Japan and other
countries; it is true to a great extent in Spain, Finland, Hungary,
Romania, the Polish so-called Republic, and although not one standard
newspaper or magazine has ever breathed a word about it, the same
Fascist movement - the march of the men of wealth and power, not the
crackpot doings of the two or three dozen who have been indicted for
sedition-is taking place in America.
p259
Hitler's entire history is one of spending big money to build u
party, big money to get millions of votes, and when his backers' money
failed to put him in office, he made the conclusive deal with them,
finally selling out the great majority who voted for him in the belief
he would keep his 26 promises, most of them directed against Big
Business, the Junkers and the other enemies of the people.
Hitler's fascist party was never a majority party. In many countries
where several political parties exist-and even in the United States at
those times when three major parties are in the field-the chancellor
or president elected to office represents only a minority of the
electorate. Nevertheless, it is true that Hitler did succeed in fairly
honest times before he was able to use bloodshed and terrorism for his
'la" elections, in making his the largest of a score of parties.
Why was he able to do this?
There are of course many reasons, notably the disillusion of the
nation, national egotism, the natural desire to be a great nation, the
psychological moment for a dictator of any party, right or left,
economic breakdown, the need of a change, and so forth. But important,
if not most important, was the platform of the Nazi party which
promised the people what they were hungering for.
It must not be forgotten that the word Nazi stands for national
socialist German workers party, and that Hitler, while secretly in the
pay of the industrialists who wanted the unions disbanded and labor
turned into serfdom, was openly boasting that his was a socialist
party-socialism without Karl Marx- and a nationalist-socialist party
whatever that may mean. But it did mean a great deal to millions. The
followers of Marxian socialism in Germany, split into several parties,
would if united constitute the greatest force in the nation, and
socialism and labor were almost synonymous in Germany. Hitler knew
this. He capitalized on it. He stole the word.
'Hitler was able to get 13 million followers before 1933 by a
pseudosocialistic reform program and by great promises of aid to the
common people. In the 26 points of the Nazi platform, adopted in 1920
and never repudiated, Hitler promised the miserable people of Germany:
1. The abolition of all unearned incomes.
2. The end of interest slavery. This was aimed against all bankers,
not only Jewish bankers.
3. Nationalization of all joint-stock companies. This meant the end of
all private industry, not only the monopolies but all big business.
4. Participation of the workers in the profits of all corporations-the
mill, mine, factory, industrial worker was to become a part owner of
industry.
5. Establishment of a sound middle class. Nazism, like Italian
Fascism, made a great appeal to the big middle class, the small
business man, the millions caught between the millstones of Big
Business and labor. The big department stores, for example, were to be
smashed. This promise delighted every small shopkeeper in Germany.
George Bernard Shaw once said that Britain was a nation of
shopkeepers. This was just as true for Germany-and German shopkeepers
were more alive politically. They were for Hitler's Nazism to a man-
and they supplied a large number of his murderous S.S. and S.A.
troops.
6. Death penalty for usurers and profiteers.
7. Distinction between "raffendes" and "schaffendes" capital - between
predatory and creative capital. This was the Gregor Strasser thesis:
that there were two kinds of money, usury and profiteering money on
one hand, and creative money on the other, and that the former had to
be eliminated. Naturally all money-owners who invested in the Nazi
Party were listed as creative capitalists, whereas the Jews (some of
whom incidentally invested in Hitler) and all who opposed Hitler were
listed as exploiters.
The vast middle class, always caught between the aspirations of the
still more vast working class and the cruel greed of the small but
most powerful ruling class, has throughout history made the mistake of
allying itself with the latter. In America we have the same thing: all
the real fascist movements are subsidized by Big Money, but powerful
organizations, such as the National Small Business Men's Association,
follow the program of the NAM in the hope they will benefit
financially when the Ruling Families benefit.
In all instances, however, history shows us that when the latter take
over a country with a fascist army they may give the middle class
privileges, benefits, a chance to earn larger profits for a while, but
in the end monopoly triumphs, and the Big Money drives the Little
Money into bankruptcy.
This is one of the many important facts which Albert Norden presented
in his most impressive pamphlet, "The Thugs of Europe," a documentary
exposé of the profits in Nazism taken entirely from Nazi sources. My
thanks are due to Mr. Norden-a German writer who escaped to America
and who went to work in a war plant recently-for permission to quote
some of the evidence. Norden takes up the matter of Nazism and its
promises to the middle class:
"If the Third Reich were for the common man, the middle class would
not have been sacrificed to the Moloch of Big Business. If the Third
Reich were for the common man, the banks and industries and resources
of the sub-soil would belong to the people and not be the private
affair of a few score old and newly rich .... As it is now, it is the
rich man's Reich. That is why there is such a widespread underground
anti-Nazi movement among the German people.
"This war is being waged by the Third Reich, the heart of the Axis, as
a 'struggle of German Socialism against the plutocracies.' Goebbels
has duped millions of young Germans with this slogan. Not only that:
Nazi propaganda outside Germany and particularly in North and South
America has succeeded in recruiting trusted followers with this
slogan ....
"The Nazi theory of a struggle of the Have-nots against the so-called
'sated' nations is as true as the myth that Goebbels is an Aryan and
Goering a Socialist. The following facts, taken from official German
statistics, prove that in the Third Reich there is a boundless
dictatorship of the plutocrats; that a small group of magnates in the
banking, industrial and chemical world have taken hold of the entire
economic apparatus at the expense of the broad sections of medium and
small manufacturers, artisans, storekeepers and workers, and are
making unprecedented profits.
p262
.... The department store of the Jewish owner Tietz was handed
over to a consortium consisting of the three largest banks, the
Deutsche Bank, the Dresdener Bank and the Commerz-und Privatbank ....
The large department store Karstadt... of its eight directors four are
big bankers, one a large exporter and a sixth an influential figure in
the Deutsche Bank ....
"The more Jews were dragged off and murdered in concentration camps,
the richer Germany's magnates became. They let the S.S. and S.A. mobs
riot and trample all human laws under their hobnail boots-meanwhile
the Dresdener Bank acquired the Berlin bank of Bleichroeder (Jewish
bank, patronized by the former Kaiser) and Arnhold Bros. (Jewish bank,
one of the best banks in Germany, patronized by U. S. Embassy and
newspapers); the Deutsche Bank seized the Mendelssohn Bank. In the
Berliner Handelsgesellschaft, an important private bank, Herbert
Goering, a relative of Marshal Hermann Goering, replaced the Jewish
partner Fuerstenberg. The Warburg Bank in Hamburg was taken over by
the Deutsche Bank and the Dresdener Bank in conjunction with the
Montan Combine of Haniel and the Siemens Trust. The latter also took
out of Jewish hands the Cassierer Cable Works .... The armaments kings
of the Ruhr did not shrink from profiting from the pogroms. As a
result of Hitler's persecution of the Jews, the Mannesmann concern
received the metal company of Wol, Netter &Jacobi, and the Hahnschen
Works; while the big industrialist Friedrich Flick (one of the dozen
men who put up most of the money to establish Nazism), today one of
the 20 richest men in the Third Reich, seized the metal company of
Rawak and Gruenfeld. This list could be expanded at will. It
illustrates the prosperous business which the solidly established
German trusts acquired as a result of the infamous crimes against the
Jews. Together with the top Nazi leaders these German financial
magnates were the main beneficiaries of the sadistic persecution of
the Jews ...
p265
The first modern fascist regime is the Italian. (Fascism itself
is as old as history, and although Mussolini is a colossal liar, he
told the truth for once when he defined Fascism as Reaction.)
Who put up the money for Mussolini?
Why did they invest in Fascism?
How were they repaid, and who footed the bill?
The original Fascist Party of Italy, likewise the Nazi Party which was
formed almost at the same time, was subsidized by a handful of the
richest industrialists and landowners who wanted to preserve their
wealth and power and prevent the majority of people from living a
better life. (The American Legion was organized for the same reason:
to preserve the privileges of the few and fool the millions who
believed better things would come after victory.
p266
Mussolini was subsidized by the Italian equivalent of our NAM and
similar Big Money outfits shortly after the seizure of the factories
in 1920.
In March 1919, fascist agitators caused the workers to seize the
Franchi-Gregorini plant. Mussolini called this a "creative strike,"
because the workers intended to run the plant for their own benefit.
One of Mussolini's colleagues wrote: "At Dalmine he was the Lenin of
Italy." At this time Mussolini was trying to get back into the labor
movement.
When the factories of Milan and Turin were occupied by the workers
Mussolini held a conference with Bruno Buozzi, who then held a place
equivalent to that of Sam Gompers in our American Federation of Labor.
He proposed using the factory occupation as the beginning of a
military movement to seize Rome and establish a dictatorship of the
proletariat. Buozzi indignantly kicked Mussolini out-labor believed in
the democratic political processes, and the main proof was that not an
act of violence marked the factory seizures, although the press of the
world for a month ran daily lies of bloodshed and terrorism.
Within a few days Mussolini had sold the same idea to the owners of
the occupied factories-only this time the same Blackshirts were to be
used to create a dictatorship of Big Business, rather than of workers.
Signor Agnelli, head of Fiat, admitted to Buozzi that Mussolini
actually had dealt with Olivetti, of the Confederazione
dell'Industria, while dealing with Buozzi. (This document in Chapter
VIII of Sawdust Caesar.)
Olivetti and company put up the money. Mussolini took Rome. And in
payment to the subsidizers his first important act was the abolition
of all labor unions-the equivalent of our AFL, CIO and Railroad
Brotherhoods.
From the day he became dictator Mussolini began paying back the men
who paid him in 1920. He abolished the tax on inheritance, for
example, because it was supposed to end big fortunes, and that of
course meant loss of money for the rich, who had in a body gone over
to Fascism after 1922. But Mussolini did not have the courage to
abolish the political democratic system all at once, and he had many
opposition parties which criticized and attacked him. His chief
opponent was the Socialist deputy Giacomo Matteotti.
The reason Matteotti had to die was because he committed the one
unforgivable crime in a Fascist nation: he exposed the profits in
Fascism.
There is no program, no policy, no ideology and certainly no
philosophy back of Fascism, as there is back of almost every other
form of government. It is nothing but a spoils system. We too in
America have a spoils system, which is talked about every four years
when a President is elected, and sometimes when a governor is elected,
but this refers largely to a few jobs, a little graft, a considerable
payoff for the boys in the back room of politics. It is also true that
we in America have ruling families, men and corporations who put up
most of the money for elections, and do not do so because one
candidate has baby blue eyes and the other is beetle-browed. It is
done for money, and the investors in politics are repaid. But Fascism
is a system whereby a handful of ruling families get the entire
nation.
p270
The landowners (and the industrial owners) were Mussolini's chief
backers. No one knew of the subsidies he had received from the great
estates. Immediately on becoming dictator Mussolini granted his first
important interview to the press of the world. He said:
"I love the working classes. The supremest ambition and the dearest
hope of my life has been, and is still, to see them better treated and
enjoying conditions of life worthy of the citizens of a great
nation .... I do not believe in the class war, but in cooperation
between classes. The Fascist government will devote all its efforts to
the creation of an agrarian democracy based on the principle of small
ownership. The great estates must be handed over to peasant
communities; the great capitalists of agriculture must submit to a
process of harmonization of their rights with those of the peasants."
This interview was printed in America on 15 November 1922 but on 11
January 1923 less than two months later, Mussolini issued a decree law
which dispossessed all the small peasants who since the war had
settled on the seized lands of the "latifundia" of the great
landowners. Needless to say, there has been no agrarian reform, no
division of estates into small holdings, no "harmonization" of "the
great capitalists of agriculture." The landowners were paid of with a
return of all land which had been given the landless and by the
employment of the Blackshirt Militia which prevented any further
attempts to divide the land.
p271
In its July 1934, issue, a song of praise for Fascism, Fortune
magazine (owned by Henry Luce, a Morgan partner, and other powerful
and wealthy Americans) told of the great corporations and how they
progressed under Mussolini.
"The significant facts to hang on to," concluded Fortune, "are these:
if you were an early Fascist, or contributed generously to the March
on Rome, you are likely to enjoy the business benefits that accrue to
a high position within the Fascist Party."
p277
Fascism in Spain was bought and paid for by numerous elements who
would profit by the destruction of the democratic Republican Loyalist
government. There were generals who wanted glory and others who wanted
the easy graft money some of their predecessors had made. There was
the established Church, and more especially the powerful Society of
Jesus, which had suffered loss of property when King Alfonso was
thrown out. There was the aristocracy, and there were other elements
as there are in all fascist regimes, but more important than all these
forces combined was the force of Money.
p278
Of course the people of Spain-the vast majority, the farmers and
workers-wanted land and a decent living. Franco therefore did the
usual fascist thing: he made big promises.
In the Twenty-Six Points of the Phalanx, the ruling Fascist Party of
today-all other parties have been abolished and Spain is totalitarian-
the nation was to be turned into "one gigantic syndicate of
producers," so that there would be plenty for all, instead of
superabundance for only the rich, as had been the case under both
monarchy and fascist dictatorship; the banks were to be nationalized,
land was to be irrigated, and those large estates which were found to
be neglected were to be broken up.
What does the balance sheet today show of the Franco "experiment" of
100 parcels of land, the distribution of a glorious total of 17,000
acres in 1938 and the promise that at least neglected estates would be
broken up? The writer-journalist Thomas J. Hamilton presents the
latest and final report:
"The landed aristocrats of Spain ... had little real cause for
complaint against the Franco regime which addressed itself to the work
of undoing any damage to their interests that they had suffered from
the Republic. This was not large. The grandees had been frightened by
talk of breaking up the great estates, but they had managed to
sabotage the Republic's first Agrarian Reform Law and the second was
just getting into operation when the Civil War began. Only a few
hundred thousand acres had actually been taken over, either in
accordance with law or as a result of the movement among the peasants
in the spring of 1936 to seize the land without waiting for the slow
operations of the government.
"The test of any Spanish regime was its attitude toward this
fundamental question, and it may be supposed that some of the grandees
had anxious moments when Franco adopted the Phalanx program with its
demand for land reform. Carlists and moderate royalists together,
however, proved more than strong enough to prevent the regime from
harming the interests of the landowners. All land which had been
occupied by the peasants, legally or otherwise, was returned to the
owners, and soon there was no longer even any mention of breaking up
the great estates ....
"In general, the old nobility, fighting very much the same type of
fight that it had under the Republic, managed to keep the Phalanx from
hitting its pocketbook."
*
Mussolini's prediction, made years before World War II broke out in
September 1939, that the entire world was lining up in two camps,
Fascism and Democracy, and that it was "Either We or They," showed
itself a matter of fact in the so-called civil war in Spain. It was
actually a rebellion of the military leadership-which committed
wholesale treason by betraying the government to which it had taken an
oath of allegiance - armed and paid for by the vested interests. The
"We" consisted of Fascists from all parts of the world, hundreds of
thousands of soldiers from Germany, Italy and Portugal, all fascist
lands, whereas the "They" of Democracy consisted of some 30,000 men of
the International Brigade, not one a conscript soldier as were all on
Franco's side, but every man a volunteer, a man of intelligence, a
first fighter against Fascism. (Of the foreigners on the Loyalist side
about 700 were Russians, mostly aviators and technicians, and not one
infantry soldier. The press of America, Britain and other countries as
usual lied about Russian aid and perpetuated the myth that the
Loyalists were Communists.)
On Franco's march to Madrid he took not only the labor union leaders
but a large percentage of the industrial workers of each town he
captured, lined them up, and shot them down with machine guns. In
Madrid the Fifth Column of Fascism killed as many of the working class
as Lit could.
p280
The Fifth Column, hidden Fascists, were the people who had
subsidized Franco. To them every working man was an anti-Fascist and
therefore marked for death. And since the Loyalists in wartime did not
wear white shirts, or white collars, or fine suits of clothes, or felt
hats, or even neckties, the Fascists of the Fifth Column, fighting
their guerrilla war in the streets of Madrid on 8 November 1936 spared
every well-dressed wealthy-looking man as a possible ally, and
murdered the men of the working class. Men in overalls were always
shot by the Fascists.
The final lesson from Spain, however, should not be lost by the
thousands of American business men, big and little, who from 1922 on
have been saying kind things about Mussolini and others who made
trains run on time and seemed to insure bigger profits by outlawing
unions, and the rights of the working people.
In Germany a million business men were ruined by Hitler, and only the
upper thousand, the wealthiest and most powerful, profited by Nazi
rule. As in Italy, so in Germany, the fascist regime had to rob not
only the poor and reimpose serfdom on millions, but it also had to rob
its own supporters to maintain a new bureaucracy, and a new army on
whose bayonets the bureaucracy tried to build a permanent government.
Fascism has to exploit either a foreign people or its own people; it
has to have money, and if it must pay off the top subsidizers this
means it has to destroy its millions of smaller helpers.
Hitler and Mussolini robbed and impoverished their own party members
in order to feed the super-monopolists. In Spain the situation is
similar. Hamilton writes:
"Spain was traditionally the land of special privilege. Franco's
success in restoring these privileges therefore produced a singularly
vicious combination: the rich stayed rich, if they did not get richer,
and the poor were even hungrier than they had been in the worst days
of the civil war .... Suffering was increased immeasurably by the
restoration of the old privileges; despite the steadily increasing
misery of the poor, the wealthy managed to obtain virtually everything
they needed. And a new class of parvenus, who had made their money by
the special 'favours' obtained from the government officials in charge
of operating the faltering economic machine, spent their profits with
an abandon which was one failing that could not be charged against the
old families."
The Franco regime had, in fact, loaded still more privileged classes
upon a suffering country....
*
The Nazi Cartel Plot in America
[In his speech at Burgos on 19 April 1939 Franco announced a
Nationalist Syndicalist state which would restore the status quo ante
1931-the time the Republic was overthrown. The New York Times headline
was: "Franco Reassures Owners of Capital."]
p281
Only the little seditionists and traitors have been rounded up by
the FBI. The real Nazi Fifth Column in America remains immune. And yet
there is evidence that those in both countries who place profits above
patriotism - and Fascism is based entirely upon profits although all
its propaganda speaks of patriotism - have conspired to make America
part of the Nazi Big Business system.
Thurman Arnold, as assistant district attorney of the United States,
his assistant, Norman Littell, and several Congressional
investigations, have produced incontrovertible evidence that some of
our biggest monopolies entered into secret agreements with the Nazi
cartels and divided the world among them. Most notorious of all was
Alcoa, the Mellon-Davis-Duke monopoly which is largely responsible for
the fact America did not have the aluminum with which to build
airplanes before and after Pearl Harbor, while Germany had an
unlimited supply. Of the Aluminum Corporation sabotage and that of
other leading companies the press said very little.
p282
Our press, which had nothing but praise for Mussolini for almost
a generation, and which has always protected Fascism, Nazism and
reaction in general by Redbaiting every person and movement which is
anti-Fascist, anti-Nazi and anti-reactionary later made a grand noise
over the traitors, seditionists and propagandists such as Father
Charles Coughlin, Fritz Kuhn and William Pelley, who were the
outstanding loudmouths at the time of Pearl Harbor. These small-fry
fascisti and the Rev. Gerald Winrod and numerous others spread the
same lies which they received from Hitler's World-Service (Welt-
Dienst) of Erfurt; all these noisy propagandists and traitors,
repeating Hitler's propaganda, did succeed in raising a huge
smokescreen over America. Behind this artificial Redbaiting,
antiSemitic, anti-New Deal fog of confusion and falsehood, however,
there was a real Fifth Column of greater importance, the great owners
and rulers of America who planned world domination through political
and military Fascism, just as surely as Hitler did in Germany, and
like groups and like leaders did in other countries. There is no
reason to believe that the United States was the one exception to the
spread of Fascism.
p283
Nine men, two representing Hitler and several leading American
industrialists, members of the Congress of the United States, and
representatives of large business and political organizations met at a
hotel in Boston, on 23 November l937-at a time Hitler was trying out
his Condor Legion, his dive bombers, his new tanks and his
Panzerdivisionen and his Blitzkrieg tactics on the poor and
practically unarmed people of Spain to formulate a working agreement
by which American forces would join Nazi forces in the monopolistic
control of the world's business and the political and military
domination of the whole world.
The document which follows is a memorandum written at the conclusion
of the meeting. The secretary who collected the notes from five of the
persons present, each of whom contributed a part, was not versed in
social, economic and political matters, but was impressed somehow with
the importance of the event, and although her notes were taken away
from her, she did succeed in retaining a carbon copy of the document.
It had a long journey, went to Scotland, was copied by persons who
realized its value, and brought back to the United States, where I was
able to obtain it for the readers of In fact. Here it is in its
entirety:
*
Text of Nazi - U.S. Cartel Memorandum
p284
[Nine men representing Hitler and several leading American
industrialists, several members of Congress and representatives of
large business and political organizations met in a hotel room in
Boston on November 23, 1937.]
Our second German guest [made] the following points:
"Germany has been grossly misrepresented before the American public by
Jewish propaganda. 'In order to clarify the picture,' he said, it is
necessary to recall that Germany of the Republican period has thrown a
remarkable confusion into the minds of the Germans. The state has been
identified with some popular welfare institution. Creative capital was
overburdened by the effects of a Utopian "social welfare" legislation.
Unemployed insurance, sick, old-age, and death benefits, social
security and war pensions meant terrible handicaps already. Trade
union wages and hours have lifted productive costs above world
standards.'
"What is the paramount achievement of National Socialism? 'The spirit
of New Germany was conducive to a kind of national solidarity.
Exaggerated demands and "social service" were reduced and production
costs realistically brought into harmony with the requirements of
competition on the world markets. This is what we have done. Not more
and not less. It is true that many objections had to be overcome. The
conception featuring the State as a supreme welfare agency had to be
eradicated and a policy of increased production pursued instead. We
had to silence therefore all centers from where class struggle was
being fomented and imprison dangerous Utopians and sentimental
philanthropists. It is true that Jewish propaganda was able to
capitalize on some stern measures and slander New Germany before the
world opinion. This is undoubtedly a detrimental fact. But we have
gotten more by the rebirth of national solidarity and the cooperation
of all for the same purpose.
"Without wishing to arouse any semblance of interfering with domestic
questions in the United States, I cannot help mentioning that today's
America presents a very close picture of Social-Democratic Germany.
Unrealistic "welfare legislation" sponsored by the 2 Administration,
chaotic class struggles and wage demands absolutely out of any
proportion, strong Jewish influence in the political, cultural and
public life of the country are disquieting phenomena. We Germans, at
any rate, are disquieted. We carry on a good work for world recovery
and we know what potential danger an increasing Red influence in the
United States would mean for the whole world.
"Another disquieting characteristic of the situation is the lack of
unity and clear-sighted leadership in the scattered national camp. You
cannot start a strong concerted drive of all forces and agencies for
the revival of American nationalism as long as this situation
prevails.
"It is time to think seriously of the centralization of all forces of
American nationalism and traditionalism. We Germans are seeking the
cooperation of all American nationalists. Above all we believe in
cooperating with the economic leaders of the country, whatever the
suitable form of the cooperation may be. There is little comprehension
on behalf of the United States Government, but in our belief there
must be comprehension for our viewpoint on behalf of business.
"We would advance the idea of such informal conferences between
responsible business and political leaders in order to consider
questions of national and international importance affecting economic
and, yes, political recovery.'
p286
"The following opinions were expressed by the American
participants of the conference:
"(a) The substance of the German suggestion amounts to changing the
spirit of our nation as expressed by recent elections. That is
possible but by no means easy. The people must become aware of the
disastrous economic effects of the policies of the present
Administration first. In the wake of the reorientation of the public
opinion a vigorous drive must start in the press and radio.
Technically it remains a question as to whether this drive may center
around the Republican National Committee.
"(b) Farsighted business men will welcome conferences of this kind. A
tremendous inspiration might come out of them. There is no reason why
we should not learn of emergencies similar to those prevailing in our
own country and the methods by which farsighted governments were
trying to overcome them. It is also clear that manufacturers, who
usually contributed to the campaigns of all candidates, must realize
that their support must be reserved to one, in whose selection they
must take an active hand. We must just as well recognize that the
business leaders of this country must get together in the present
emergency. By now they must have realized that they cannot expect much
from Washington. We will have to resort to concrete planning.
"We can all agree that it is desirable to convince our business
leaders that it is a good investment to embark on subsidizing our
patriotic citizens' organizations and secure their fusion for the
common purpose.
"Unified leadership with one conspicuous leader will be a sound
policy. We will be grateful for any service our German friends may
give us in this respect.
"(c) American foreign policy must be chiefly guarded against the
danger of the sovietization of the Far East. More than ever we must
supervise by Congress what the State Department does. Rapprochement
with Germany, while unpopular, is a necessity, if we consider the
strong proSoviet agitation going on and finding patronage in the
United States. It is of the greatest importance that leading and
influential figures in our business life and the policy-making bodies
of both political parties should be appraised of this first
conversation and prevailed upon to discuss the possibilities of a non-
partisan cooperation on the subject."
The importance of the foregoing memorandum, the first of a proposed
series of notes upon which a political-commercial pact between the
Nazi regime and pro-fascist Americans could be arranged, was
recognized at the time.
p287
The importance of the document lies largely in the prominence and
importance of the nine men who attended the conference and the forces
and corporations they represented. Of these nine, their governments,
and their corporations and other interests ...
p287
General Motors Representative. General Motors was completely
involved in Nazi affairs. Until Pearl Harbor it was the owner of the
Adam Opel A. G., worth more than $100 million. It had paid $30 million
for 80 percent of the stock. It had made 30 percent of Germany's
peacetime passenger cars. After Hitler came into power, it began
manufacturing the trucks and panzer division equipment with which
Hitler waged war. In 10 years it had made a profit estimated at $36
million. But, since Hitler banned the export of capital, and American
stockholders were thereby denied these dividends, General Motors
invested at least $20 million in other industries, all owned or
controlled by Goering and other Nazi officials, and thus General
Motors was completely affiliated with Nazi success or failure. (Source
for statistics: Poor's Manual.)
p288
DuPont Representative. The four most important facts about the
DuPont Empire are:
a. that it controls General Motors, owning $197 million of General
Motors stock;
b. that it financed the Liberty League, Sentinels, Crusaders and one
dozen native American fascist outfits;
c. that it knowingly and secretly and in violation of the U. S. and
other laws, aided Hitler to arm for this war;
d. that the DuPonts betrayed military secrets to Hitler.
One great cartel of the merchants of death is called Dynamit-
AktienGesellschaft (DAG). Exhibit 456 in the Nye-Vandenberg munitions
investigation shows that DuPonts not only own stock but a voting right
and a voice in the management of the cartel. Exhibit 456 also shows
DuPont has a financial interest in I. G. Farbenindustrie, the Nazi
cartel which ties up with the Aluminum monopoly, Standard Oil,
synthetic rubber, Sterling and other drug concerns.
p289
The DuPonts knew that according to the Thyssen plan German
Fascism was nothing more than a system by which the biggest German
industries got control of the nation, smashing small business, seizing
political rule. Wendell R. Swint, director of DuPont foreign
relations, testified the DuPonts knew of the "scheme whereby industry
would contribute to the (Nazi) Party Organization funds, and in fact
industry is called upon to pay one-half percent of the annual wage or
salary roll to the Nazi organization." (Munitions Hearing, Vol. XII.)
The relationship of the DuPonts to Nazi Germany-the story of how they
armed Hitler with the help of Mr. Hoover-as exposed by the munitions
investigation, gives valuable support to the foregoing.
On 4 December 1938 the Associated Press, Moscow bureau, sent out a
list issued by the official Tass government press bureau of a "fascist
clique" in the United States, which list follows with explanatory
facts about each person:
"War Industry Magnate" DuPont. The official statement said the DuPonts
had "great capital investments in fascist Germany."
William S. Knudsen, president of General Motors. Knudsen told a New
York Times reporter (6 October 1933) on arriving from Europe that
Hitler's Germany was "the miracle of the 20th Century." Nevertheless
paragraph "c" in our memorandum was not written by Knudsen, but by
another GM official of equal prominence.
Colonel Charles Lindbergh. In addition to collaborating with the
British Cliveden Set, Lindbergh had written an article for the
reactionary Reader's Digest stating Hitler's Aryan myth and other
fascist doctrines.
Former President Herbert Hoover.
Ambassador to Britain Joseph P. Kennedy. Kennedy's secret report to
Roosevelt on the war favored Britain going Fascist.
Henry Ford.
*
NAM (National Association of Manufacturers): The Men Who Financed
American Fascism
p291
The two corporations which were part of the Nazi cartel plot in the
United States are two of the main vertebrae of the backbone of
American Fascism. Lammot DuPont and Alfred P. Sloan, Jr., of the
DuPont Empire and General Motors respectively, have been exposed by
Congressional committees as subsidizers of fascist organizations and
movements. Both corporations and both men are also among the top
flight rulers of the National Association of Manufacturers.
p296
In establishing the fact that the NAM was founded primarily to
fight labor, and that it was still doing so, Senator La Follette
introduced a statement published in 1904 in a NAM magazine called
American Industries. In objecting to the only large union of its
time-1904-this publication said: "We are not opposed to good unionism
if such exists anywhere. The American Federation brand of unionism,
however, is un-American, illegal 1 and indecent."
p297
When the O'Mahoney committee released its Monograph 26 the
newspapers of the nation, always happy to suppress anything that is
critical of the hand that feeds it-that is, Big Business, through the
medium of advertising, obliged by refraining from mentioning the
matter at all, or, like the New York Times, published a report that
lobbying had been condemned but omitted the name of the NAM.
The Times, which did publish a column story, and therefore did publish
much more than other papers, nevertheless omitted most of the
following quotations-which will give the reader a taste of the
tremendously important material Monograph 26 contains:
'The American people are confronted with the problem of who shall
control the government." The monograph then discusses the big pressure
group, notably the American Legion lobby, farmers, peace groups, but
concludes that the National Association of Manufacturers, the Chamber
of Commerce, and their agents, the lawyers' associations, the
newspaper publishers' associations, rule the country.
"From the beginning, business has been intent upon wielding economic
power and, where necessary, political control for its own
purposes .... Even today, when the purposeful use of government power
for the general welfare is more widely accepted than at any time in
our history, government does not begin to approach the fusion of power
and will characteristic of business." Everyone is fighting for power,
for control, in Washington, but "by far the largest and most important
of these groups is to be found in 'business' . . . as dominated by the
200 largest non-financial and the 50 largest financial corporations,
and the employer and trade associations into which it and its
satellites are organized." The 200 nonfinancial corporations in 1935
controlled $60 billion of physical assets. The march of America toward
public betterment "has been hindered, obstructed and at times
apparently completely stopped by pressure groups."
"Business ... has fought ... government ownership. Through the press,
public opinion and pressure groups it is possible to influence the
political process .... Both press and radio are, after all, 'big
business' and even when they possess the highest integrity, they are
the prisoners of their own beliefs."
Business, continues the report, operates on the principle that $60
billion can't be wrong.
"In this connection the business orientation of the newspaper press is
a valuable asset. In the nature of things public opinion is usually
well disposed toward business .... Newspapers have it in their power
materially to influence public opinion on particular issues .... With
others, editorializing is practiced as a matter of course. And even
where editors and publishers are men of the highest integrity, they
are owners and managers of big business enterprises, and their papers
inevitably reflect, at least to some extent, their economic interest.
When organized business deliberately propagandizes the country, using
newspaper advertising as one medium, the press is a direct means of
channeling business views into the public mind .... Lawyers have
remade constitutional guarantees in the image of business .... The la)
the newspaper press, and the advertising professions have all helped
business by spreading this changed conception of the Jeffersonian
idea."
In other words, Business, using lawyers, the press and advertising,
has undermined Jeffersonian democracy.
The report names the business pressure lobbies, notably the National
Association of Manufacturers, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Edison
Electric Institute, Association of Life Insurance Presidents, American
Iron and Steel Institute, American Petroleum Institute, American
Bankers Association, American Investment Bankers Association, American
Bar Association, and adds: "Through the American Newspaper Publishers
Association [Lords of the Press] the country's daily newspapers join
their strength for business and against government." This is a most
damning indictment. It did not appear in the Times
p303
You will have to read the free and independent press, which is
largely the press of small unbribed weeklies, and a few pamphlets and
books to get the truth. The truth is not in the commercial press
because the truth is a dagger pointed at its heart, which is its
pocketbook. Native American Fascism is largely the policy of the
employers of gangsters, stool pigeons, labor spies, poison gas, and
antilabor propaganda; it is the fascism of the NAM, the Associated
Farmers and Associated Industries, the Christian American Association;
the KKK, the Committee for Constitutional Government, the
Constitutional Educational League, the U. S. Chamber of Commerce, the
old Liberty League and its present subsidized outfits, and the Royal
Family which unfortunately controls the American Legion.
The following statement made by Professor Gaetano Salvemini of Harvard
is noteworthy. Professor Salvemini told reporter Joseph Philip Lyford
of the Harvard Crimson that "a new brand of Fascism" threatens
America, "the Fascism of corporate business enterprise in this
country." He believed that "almost 100 percent of American Big
Business" is in sympathy with the "philosophy" of government behind
the totalitarianism of Hitler and Mussolini; the bond of sympathy
between Big Business and the Fascist Axis, said the professor of
history, lies in the respect of American industrialists for the Axis
methods of coercing labor.
There are two means which the industrialist can employ to crush labor,
Professor Salvemini explained; one way is to hire strikebreakers to
"crack the workers' skulls," the other way is to pass a law outlawing
strikes. "Mussolini has used both methods in Italy," Professor
Salvemini asserted; "in America Big Business has only been able to use
the first." But business is definitely sympathetic to anti-strike
legislation, he added, and compared the organization of the Ford plant
at River Rouge to the organization of the Fascist auto industry, and
the strikebreaking methods used by Ford there to those which had been
used by Italian industry to crush the workers on the eve of
Mussolini's rise to power.
Salvemini's statement, based on Italian Fascism, paralleled the
statement which Ambassador Dodd made on returning to America from
Germany. Both these men noted the relationship between foreign Fascism
and American business monopolies and the handful of super-
industrialists who rule most countries for their own profit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB212/index.htm
PINOCHET: A Declassified Documentary Obit
Archive Posts Records on former Dictator's Repression, Acts of
Terrorism, U.S. Support
National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 212
Edited by Peter Kornbluh and Yvette White
For more information contact:
Peter Kornbluh - 202/374-7281;
202/994-7116
Yvette White - 202/994-7000
Posted - December 12, 2006
The Pinochet File: A Declassified Dossier on Atrocity and
Accountability
By Peter Kornbluh
A Los Angeles Times
Best Nonfiction
Book of 2003
The Condor Years: How Pinochet and His Allies Brought Terrorism to
Three Continents
By John Dinges
Related postings
September 20, 2006
Letelier-Moffit Assassination 30 Years Later
Archive calls for Release of Withheld Documents Relating to Pinochet's
Role in Infamous Act of Terrorism
March 15, 2005
The Secret Pinochet Portfolio
Former Dictator's
Corruption Scandal Broadens
December 14, 2004
The Case Against Pinochet
Ex-Dictator Indicted for
Condor Crimes
June 10, 2004
Lifting of Pinochet's Immunity Renews Focus on Operation
Condor
Documents Indicated 1976 Terror Attack in Washington Might Have
Been Prevented
February 18, 2004
Ed Koch Threatened With Assassination in 1976
New
Book Reveals "Condor" Agents Discussed Plan to Kill Former New York
Congressman/Mayor
Washington D.C., December 12, 2006 - As Chile prepared to bury General
Augusto Pinochet, the National Security Archive today posted a
selection of declassified U.S. documents that illuminate the former
dictator's record of repression. The documents include CIA records on
Pinochet's role in the Washington D.C. car bombing that killed former
Chilean ambassador Orlando Letelier and his American colleague Ronni
Moffitt, Defense Intelligence Agency biographic reports on Pinochet,
and transcripts of meetings in which Secretary of State Henry
Kissinger resisted bringing pressure on the Chilean military for its
human rights atrocities.
"Pinochet's death has denied his victims a final judicial reckoning,"
said Peter Kornbluh, who directs the Archive's Chile Documentation
Project. "But the declassified documents do contribute to the ultimate
verdict of history on his atrocities."
Most of the documents posted today are drawn from a collection of
24,000 declassified records that were released by the Clinton
administration after Pinochet's October, 1998, arrest in London. Many
of them are reproduced in Kornbluh's book, The Pinochet File: A
Declassified Dossier on Atrocity and Accountability.
Pinochet died of complications from a heart attack on December 10,
which was, by coincidence, International Human Rights Day.
Read the Documents
Note: The following documents are in PDF format.
You will need to download and install the free Adobe Acrobat Reader to
view.
Initial Reports on Pinochet's Repression
Department of State, SECRET Memorandum, "Chilean Executions," includes
"Fact Sheet-Human Rights in Chile," November 27, 1973
Updated "Fact Sheet-Human Rights in Chile," January 15, 1974
This memo, sent to the Secretary of State by Jack Kubisch, states that
summary executions in the nineteen days following the coup totaled
320--more than three times the publicly acknowledged figure. At the
same time, Kubisch reports on new economic assistance just authorized
by the Nixon administration. The memo provides information about the
Chilean military's justification for the continued executions. It also
includes a situation report and human rights fact sheet on Chile. An
updated fact sheet showing the situation two months later is also
included.
Central Intelligence Agency, SECRET Intelligence Report, [Executions
in Chile since the Coup], October 27, 1973
This Intelligence Report states that between September 11, 1973 and
October 10, 1973 a total of 13,500 prisoners had been registered as
detained by the Chilean armed forces. During that same time period, an
estimated 1,600 civilian deaths occurred as a result of the coup. The
report also notes that eighty civilians were either executed on the
spot or killed by firing squads after military trials.
Central Intelligence Agency, SECRET Report, "Chile: Violations of
Human Rights," May 24, 1977
This secret CIA report acknowledges that Chile's National Intelligence
Directorate is behind the recent increase in torture, illegal
detentions, and unexplained "disappearances." The report notes that
the increase in gross violations of human rights in Chile comes at a
particularly bad time for the country.
Defense Intelligence Agency, CONFIDENTIAL Report, "Directorate of
National Intelligence (DINA) Expands Operations and Facilities," April
15, 1975
This DIA report on Chile's Directorate of National Intelligence (DINA)
discusses the organization's structure and its relationship with the
Chilean Armed Forces and the country's governing Junta. DINA is
identified as the sole agency responsible handling internal subversive
matters. The report warns that the possibility of DINA becoming a
modern day Gestapo may be coming to fruition. It concludes that any
advantages gained by humanitarian practices in Chile could easily be
offset by DINA's terror tactics.
U.S. Support for the Pinochet Regime
Department of State, SENSITIVE Cable, "USG Attitude Toward Junta,"
September 13, 1973
This DOS cable sent two days after the coup states that the "US
government wishes to make clear its desire to cooperate with the
military Junta and to assist in any appropriate way." This official
welcome agreed that it was best to avoid too much public
identification between the Junta and the United States government.
Department of State, SENSITIVE Cable, "Continuation of Relations with
GOC and Request for Flares and Helmets," September 18, 1973
This DOS cable was sent in response to a note from the Junta regarding
the continuation of relations. It stress the US government's
"strongest desire to cooperate closely with the Chilean Junta."
Department of State, Memorandum, "Ambassador Popper's Policy Paper,"
July 11, 1975
ARA analyst Richard Bloomfield's memo notes that "in the eyes of the
world at large, we are closely associated with this Junta, ergo with
fascists and torturers." In this memo he makes clear his disagreement
with Kissinger's position and argues that the human rights problem in
Chile should be of primary interest to the U.S. government.
Department of State, Memorandum of Conversation, Secretary's Meeting
with Foreign Minister Carvajal, September 29, 1975
This transcript records a meeting between Secretary Kissinger and
Pinochet's foreign minister, Patricio Carvajal, following Chile's
decision to cancel a visit by the United Nations Human Rights
Commission investigating human rights crimes. Kissinger begins the
meeting by disparaging his staff "who have a vocation for the
ministry" for focusing on human rights in the briefing papers prepared
for the meeting. He tells Carvajal that condemnation of the Pinochet
regime's human rights record is "a total injustice," but that
"somewhat visible" efforts by the regime to alleviate the situation
would be useful in changing Congressional attitudes. "Our point of
view is if you do something, let us know so we can use it with
Congress." Kissinger, Carvajal, and Assistant Secretary Rogers then
discuss U.S. efforts to expedite Ex-Im Bank credits and multilateral
loans to Chile as well as cash sales of military equipment. At the end
of the meeting, Kissinger voices support for the regime's idea to host
the June 1976 OAS meeting in Santiago as a way of increasing
Pinochet's prestige and improving Chile's negative image.
Department of State, SECRET, "The Secretary's 8:00 a.m. Regional Staff
Meeting," December 5, 1974
At this staff meeting, Secretary Kissinger spends considerable time
discussing Congressional efforts, led by Senator Edward Kennedy, to
restrict U.S. military assistance to the Pinochet regime. The
transcript records Kissinger's vehement opposition to such legislative
initiatives, on the grounds that they are unfair to the Chilean
military government, could lead to its collapse, and set a dangerous
precedent for cutting assistance to other unsavory governments the
Ford Administration is supporting. "Well, am I wrong that this sort of
thing is likely to finish off that government?" he demands to know.
Later he asks: "Is this government worse than the Allende government?
Is human rights more severely threatened by this government than
Allende?" According to Kissinger, "the worse crime of this government
is that it is pro-American." In response, Assistant Secretary for
Latin America, William Rogers informs the Secretary, "in terms of
freedom of association, Allende didn't close down the opposition
party. In terms of freedom of the press, Allende didn't close down all
the newspapers."
Department of State, SECRET Memorandum of Conversation between Henry
Kissinger and Augusto Pinochet, "U.S.-Chilean Relations," June 8, 1976
In this secret memorandum of conversation, Kissinger briefs Pinochet
in advance of his speech to the Organization of American States (OAS)
in Santiago in June 1976. He lets Pinochet know that he will treat the
issue of human rights in general terms only. He stresses that his
speech is not aimed at Chile but that it is intended to appease the
U.S. Congress. But, he notes, "we have a practical problem we have to
take into account, without bringing about pressures incompatible with
your dignity, and at the same time which does not lead to U.S. laws
which will undermine our relationship."
Pinochet and the Letelier-Moffitt Assassination
Central Intelligence Agency, SECRET Intelligence Information Cable,
[Assassination of Orlando Letelier], October 6, 1976
Two weeks after the car bombing assassination of Orlando Letelier this
CIA field report states that its source "believes that the Chilean
government is directly involved in Letelier's death and feels that
investigation into the incident will so indicate."
Central Intelligence Agency, SECRET Intelligence Assessment, "Chile:
Implications of the Letelier Case," May 1978
This CIA intelligence assessment alludes to the strain placed on U.S.-
Chilean relations in light of recent findings in the investigation of
the murder of Orlando Letelier that firmly linked the former Foreign
Minister to the highest levels of the Chilean government. CIA analysts
write, "The sensational developments have evoked speculation about
President Pinochet's survival."
Central Intelligence Agency, SECRET Intelligence Report, "[Deleted]
Strategy of Chilean Government with Respect to Letelier Case, and
Impact of Case on Stability of President Pinochet," June 23, 1978
This secret intelligence report outlines Pinochet's strategy to cover
up his regime's complicity in the Letelier assassination. The four-
point strategy would protect General Contreras from successful
prosecution in the murder, stonewall requests from the U.S. government
that would help them build a case against Chileans involved in the
terrorist act, prevent the Supreme Court from honoring U.S.
extradition requests, and convince the Chilean people that the
investigation into the Letelier assassination is a politically
motivated tool to destabilize the Pinochet regime.
Pinochet Biographic Reports
Defense Intelligence Agency, SECRET, "Biographic Data on Augusto
Pinochet," January 1975 (unredacted version)
Two versions of DIA's biographic profile on Pinochet - one fully
uncensored, the other curiously redacted. Please see the Archive's
prior posting regarding the two different versions of the document.
Central Intelligence Agency, SECRET, "Biographic Handbook [on] Chile,"
November 1974
This CIA bio describes Pinochet as an intelligent, disciplined, and
professional military officer who is known for his toughness. The
document states that Pinochet is dedicated to the national
reconstruction of his country and will not tolerate any opposition to
that goal.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nathan Bedford Forrest
and there is not really all that much anyone can say or do to convince
them otherwise.
duckstandard
Too bad for all of us. You ever think Democrats and Republicans should
'sometimes' seek a better state of government ethics, together? Or is
it always merely just a political backstabbing opportunity.
duckstandard
retrogro...@comcast.net wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 19:16:39 -0500, "None4U" <nos...@nospam.none>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >Hilary Clinton created this mess. She set us back 100 yeatrs. Too bad for
> >you..
>
> the problem. Why is that?
Problem solvers
duckstandard
None4U wrote:
> "Nathan Bedford Forrest" <NBF@H�TMAIL.COM> wrote in message
> news:hjg4bo$t95$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> None4U wrote:
> > "Nathan Bedford Forrest" <NBF@H�TMAIL.COM> wrote in message
> > news:hjg2v2$8gj$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> >> Who reading this honestly believes that the Supreme Court decision
> >> allowing corporations and labor unions to give unlimited amounts of
> >> money to political campaigns is a good thing for America?
> >>
> >> Who hear believes that this does not allow corporations and labor unions
> >> an undemocratic advantage in the political process and takes power away
> >> from the individual and puts it into the hands of moneyed interests?
> >>
> >> Where is the outrage?
> >>
> >> Where are the Tea Baggers??
> >
> >
> >
> > Hilary Clinton created this mess. She set us back 100 yeatrs. Too bad for
> > you..
>
> I didn't realize that Hillary had a vote on the current conservative
> Supreme Court.
>
>
> Throw some spin on it loser. The facts are in your face and you got nothing
> to say about it.
This is devastating, everything about it is a liberals nightmare, do
you like it?
Let's see what Democrats and Republicans oppose it and back them?
Beam Me Up Scotty
Similar to unions and ACORN...?
Poetic Justice
>
> None4U wrote:
>>>
>> Hilary Clinton created this mess. She set us back 100 yeatrs. Too bad for
>> you..
>
>
> front. The Hillary campaign had nothing to do with it. Again you
> spread lies through ignorance.
Who complained to the Federal Elections Commission, or do they simply
apply for legal injunctions on their own via their police force?
Nathan Bedford Forrest
Unions? ACORN?
Hahaha... what kind of chump change can *they* scrape together compared
to multinational corporations, many of which are net even based in the
US? It was a sop thrown in to give the appearance of a level playing field.
________________________________________________________
Supreme Court OKs unlimited corporate spending on elections
The justices overturn a century of U.S. electoral law by a 5-4 vote.
Millions of extra dollars are expected to start flowing from big
business to this fall's races, much of it benefiting Republican candidates.
Reporting from Washington - Overturning a century-old restriction, the
Supreme Court ruled Thursday that corporations could spend as much as
they wanted to sway voters in federal elections.
In a landmark 5-4 decision, the court's conservative bloc said that
corporations had the same right to free speech as individuals, and for
that reason the government could not stop corporations from spending to
help their favored candidates.
The ruling, which will presumably apply as well to labor unions and
other organizations, is likely to have an effect on this year's
congressional elections. Many political analysts and election-law
experts predict that millions of extra dollars will flood into this
fall's contests, much of it benefiting Republican candidates.
Republicans praised the decision as a victory for wide-open political
speech, but Democrats slammed it as a win for big money.
President Obama called the ruling "a major victory for Big Oil, Wall
Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful
interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out
the voices of everyday Americans." He promised to seek "a forceful
response to this decision" from Congress. Some Democrats talked about
seeking legislation that would require corporations to get approval from
their shareholders before spending money on politics.
pyjamarama
> On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 11:33:57 -0500, Beam Me Up Scotty
>
> <Then-Destroy-Everyth...@Talk-n-dog.com> wrote:
> >> Here we have the fact that, in Reality Land, the US Supreme Court ruled
> >> 5-4 in favor of allowing corporations the right to use unlimited amounts
> >> of money to promote political campaigns.
>
> >Similar to unions and ACORN...?
>
> (which most are) who can now pour money into the political system
>
> Guess who gets the most?? (hint--party in power)
>
> BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Tell that to the very liberal voters of Mass. who told Obumma and the
DNC to go fuck themselves...
Wait 'til the rest of America gets done with you parasites...
You won't get anywhere near the levers of power for more than a
generation...
At your advanced age and in your poor health, you'll have long since
decomposed in some numbered plot in potter's field...
God how it must suck to be you!
"Then why was you mother stupid enough to fuck all them black guys?"
-- Gary Roselles, Feb 18, 2007
"They (African-Americans) talk in rap speech" -- Gary Roselles, Jul 2,
2005
GARY ROSELLES (aka "smor…@board") left-wing sociopath and author of
the following “views” on race, homosexuality, death-threats and, lest
we forget, killing govt. officials and teenage girls:
"She (Katherine Harris) should be at least shot" -- Gary Roselles
"I call Kathering[sic] Harris a nazi/fascist right wing ideologue
whore.
What did we do to German nazis right wing whores?" -- Gary
Roselles
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.clinton/msg/9431827dde9eb727?dmode=source
“May a real american someday have the honor of putting a bullet
between her eyes." -- Gary Roselles on B. Robertson's teenage
daughter.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.bush/msg/346a12114c9884ee?hl=en&dmode=source
What the fuck would a dumb cocksucker like (Distinguished African-
American Scholar, Thomas) Sowell, who sits out at Stanford, never
having
worked a day in his Uncle Tom life, know anything?" -- Gary
Roselles
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.rush-limbaugh/msg/652f875e53203e8e?hl=en&
"Both are traitors to their race" -- Race Purist Gary Roselles on the
importance
of Race Loyalty
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.rush-limbaugh/msg/90646e9b4da37793
"You actually think that placing blackskinned, white thinking people
is going to gain anything with real minorities?" -- Gary Roselles,
Racist
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater/msg/1b116fa0999182fb
(see header)
"Them brown niggers need to be taken out" -- Gary Roselles, Racist
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.republicans/msg/421a0f9263435ca4
"He (African-American scholar Thomas Sowell) goes against his own
kind." Race loyalist Gary Roselles, insisting once again that “them
blacks” should "stick
to their own kind"
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/17fcf97abe2e4ee2?dmode=source
"His appointment will bridge nothing. It's apparant he's being an
uncle tom to appease voters." -- White trash, racist asshole Gary
Roselles
slurs African-American Hero General Colin Powell
"Group Negro Poster Pyjamarma admits to being a coconut headed coon"
-- Gary Roselles, pathetic racist
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.rush-limbaugh/msg/d9ccfefc35328516?dmode=source
"Say "yes Massa", Uncle Tom." – Vile racist Gary Roselles pathetically
mocks and
slurs prominent African-American man-of-the-cloth Jesse Lee
Peterson
"How does a pampered, Stanford based, Scaife funded, Uncle Tom make
judgements on "the bottom", McFly?" -- Another day, another racial
slur on an educated, successful, independent black man from Gary
Roselles
"I consider hating RIGHT WING nazi/fascist fucks like you a God
inspired emotion."
"Hating RIGHT WINGERS is doing God's work, Dumbapropyl" -- Pure,
venomous hate-speech from "god-inspired" whackjob Gary Roselles
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.clinton/msg/9431827dde9eb727?dmode=source
Yeah, there's a real fucking credible authority----Hitchens a faggot
socialist." -- Gary Roselles, “f”-bomb droppin’ rabid homophobe
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.conservatism/msg/d2ab5e412f7ed8e7?dmode=source
"You're like that kid that has just been told that's not a hot-dog
he's sucking on" -- Gary Roselles, Pedophile, admits forcing oral
copulation on a child
http://groups.google.com/group/seattle.politics/msg/fcf8198215ac03f2?as_ums
pyjamarama
> >==========================================================================
> >"Secular schools can never be tolerated because such a school has no
> >religious instruction and a general moral instruction without a
> >religious foundation is built on air; consequently all character training
> >and religion must be derived from faith.... We
> >need believing people."
> > --Adolf Hitler, April 26, 1933,
Quoting your hero again, eh, ROSIELOON?
Seems you two have very similar views on race purity and race loyalty:
"Then why was you mother stupid enough to fuck all them black guys?"
-- Rosellles expresses his disdain for race mixing, 2/18/2007
"They're both traitors to their race" -- Gary Roselles takes a firm
stand on race loyalty while commenting on distinguished African-
American scholars and writers Dr. Thomas Sowell and Dr. Walter
Williams.
Why don't you tell the good folk here what YOU do to remain loyal to
YOUR race?
Besides slurring those who don't share your ethnic background, I mean.
Nickname unavailable
> On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 11:33:57 -0500, Beam Me Up Scotty
>
> <Then-Destroy-Everyth...@Talk-n-dog.com> wrote:
> >> 5-4 in favor of allowing corporations the right to use unlimited amounts
> >> of money to promote political campaigns.
>
> >Similar to unions and ACORN...?
>
> (which most are) who can now pour money into the political system
>
> Guess who gets the most?? (hint--party in power)
>
> BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
just think how many trillions the CONSERVATIVE MARXIST MAOISTS
FASCISTS sympathizers have lavished on china. THE MARXIST MAOISTS
FASCISTS in china, are drooling at the chance to gut american
democracy. now they can.
they could not out gun us, but they must be ROTFLOL, after the
conservatives disarmed america.