bureaucracybusters

Posts Tagged ‘THIRD REICH’

“WORKING TOWARDS THE PRESIDENT”: PART ONE (OF TWO)

In Bureaucracy, Business, History, Law, Law Enforcement, Politics, Social commentary on December 5, 2024 at 12:32 am

When historians—-and ordinary citizens—think about the Third Reich, the name of Werner Willikens doesn’t immediately spring to mind.  

Adolf Hitler, Herman Goring, Joseph Goebbels, Heinrich Himmler, Adolf Eichmann—yes.

But Werner Willikens?  Why him?

Ian Kershaw has unearthed the reason.

Ian Kershaw  is a British historian and author who has written extensively about the Third Reich. He is best-known for his monumental, two-volume biography, Hitler 1889–1936: Hubris (1998) and Hitler 1936–1945: Nemesis (2000). 

Ian Kershaw 2012 crop.jpg

Ian Kershaw

Willikens, State Secretary in the Ministry of Food, gave a speech on February 21, 1934 that casts new light on how Hitler came to exercise vast authority over Nazi Germany:

“Everyone who has the opportunity to observe it knows that the Fuhrer can hardly dictate from above everything he intends to realize sooner or later.

“On the contrary, up till now everyone with a post in the new Germany has worked best when he has, so to speak, worked towards the Fuhrer….

“In fact, it is the duty of everybody to try to work towards the Fuhrer along the lines he would wish.  Anyone who makes mistakes will notice it soon enough.

“But anyone who really works towards the Fuhrer along his lines and towards his goal will certainly both now and in the future one day have the finest reward in the form of the sudden legal confirmation of his work.”

Volker Ullrich, bestselling author of Hitler: Ascent 1889 – 1939, summed up the results of this interplay between Hitler and his subjects:

“Kershaw tried to show that in many instances Hitler didn’t need to do very much at all since German society–everyone from the underlings surrounding him to ordinary people on the street—-were increasingly inclined to anticipate and fulfill the Fuhrer’s every wish, ‘working towards him.’

“…Kershaw did not minimize the historical role played by Hitler and his insane, ideological fixations, but he did illustrate that without the readiness of many people to work for the man in charge, there would have been no way he could have achieved his murderous aims.

“Kershaw’s main thesis was that the dynamics of the Nazi regime arose from the interplay of Hitler’s intentions with activism emanating from subordinate individuals and institutions. The results were ever more radical ‘solutions.'” 

Related image

With the Third Reich dying in the flames of Berlin, at about 3:30 p.m. on April 30, 1945, Adolf Hitler simultaneously bit on a cyanide capsule and fired a pistol shot into his right temple.

The concept of “working towards the Fuhrer” seemed to have come to a literally fiery end.

Fast forward almost 72 years later–to 4:42 p.m. on January 27, 2017.

Newly inaugurated President Donald J. Trump signed into law an executive order that:

  • Suspended entry of all refugees to the United States for 120 days;
  • Barred Syrian refugees indefinitely; and
  • Blocked entry into the United States for 90 days for citizens of Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen.

Trump’s executive order read as follows: “In order to protect Americans, the United States must ensure that those admitted to this country do not bear hostile attitudes toward it and its founding principles.

“The United States cannot, and should not, admit those who do not support the Constitution, or those who would place violent ideologies over American law.”

Donald Trump official portrait.jpg

President Donald Trump

But that statement excluded three extremely troubling facts.

First: Over the previous four decades, there had been no fatal attacks within the United States by immigrants from any of those seven banned countries. 

Second, approximately 3,000 Americans had been killed by immigrants from Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt, and Turkey. Most of those victims died during the attacks on the Pentagon and World Trade Center on September 11, 2001.

In fact, 15 of the 19 highjackers who took part in those attacks came from Saudi Arabia. Osama bin Laden, the mastermind of the attacks, was himself a Saudi from a wealthy family with strong ties to the Saudi Royal Family.

Third, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt, and Turkey were all countries where Trump had close business ties. His properties included two luxury towers in Turkey and golf courses in the United Arab Emirates.

Trump listed companies on his FEC filing possibly related to a development project in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia’s second-biggest city, located outside Mecca: DT Jeddah Technical Services Manager LLC, DT Jeddah Technical Services Manager Member Corp., THC Jeddah Hotel Manager LLC and THC Jeddah Hotel Manager Member Corp.

Trump listed two companies on his FEC filing possibly related to business in Egypt: Trump Marks Egypt and Trump Marks Egypt LLC.

The full dimensions of Trump’s holdings throughout the Middle East aren’t known because he has refused to release his tax returns.

On January 11, 2017, Trump said that:

  • He would resign from his positions at the Trump Organization but that he would not divest his ownership.
  • The organization would be managed by his sons Eric and Don Jr. and chief financial officer Allen Weisselberg.
  • The organization would terminate pending deals and not seek new international business.

Walter Shaub, director of the Office of Government Ethics, said that these measures did not resolve the President’s conflict-of-interest problems and called them  “meaningless.”

It was after Trump signed his executive order that the true consequences of “working towards the Fuhrer”—or President—were fully revealed.

AMERICA’S “SUPREME JUDGE” VS. “ROCKET MAN”: PART TWO (END)

In Bureaucracy, Business, History, Law, Law Enforcement, Politics, Social commentary on November 27, 2024 at 12:11 am

Elon Musk is currently riding high.

He is—famously—the world’s richest man, with an estimated net worth of $314 billion as of November 2024, according to the Bloomberg Billionaires Index. He owns Tesla, Inc. X (formerly Twitter), Space X and xAI, an artificial intelligence startup that he founded in 2023.

And he’s used to getting his way: In a notorious video exchange with Donald Trump, the two men discussed firing striking workers.   

Portrait of Elon Musk, a white, middle-age man with short, dark hair, wearing a morning coat

Elon Musk

The Royal Society, CC BY-SA 3.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0&gt;, via Wikimedia Commons

Trump praised Musk for firing workers who went on strike. “You’re the greatest cutter. I look at what you do. You walk in and say, ‘You want to quit?’ I won’t mention the name of the company but they go on strike and you say, ’That’s OK. You’re all gone.’”

Musk said, “Yeah,” and laughed while Trump was talking.

In 2021, the National Labor Relations Board ruled that Musk, in a 2018 Twitter tweet, had unlawfully threatened Tesla employees with the loss of stock options if they voted to unionize.

But in October, 2024, the full 5th Circuit later threw out that decision and voted to hear the matter again.

Tesla headquarters

Larry D. Moore, CC BY 4.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0&gt;, via Wikimedia Commons

And now, having successfully backed Trump for the Presidency against Vice President Kamala Harris, Musk feels he has achieved the ultimate in success—in business and politics.

But NBC News delivered a warning on November 13: “Elon Musk may already be overstaying his welcome in Trump’s orbit.”

Two sources involved with the Trump transition team said that Musk has been a near-constant presence at Mar-a-Lago in the week since Election Day.

And he’s begun to annoy people in Trump’s inner circle who believe he’s overstepping his role in the transition.

“‘He’s behaving as if he’s a co-president and making sure everyone knows it,” one source said. “And he’s sure taking lots of credit for the President’s victory. Bragging about America PAC and X to anyone who will listen. He’s trying to make President Trump feel indebted to him. And the President is indebted to no one.”

Donald Trump

Yet another source said: “He wants to be seen as having a say in everything (even if he doesn’t).”

The second source said Musk appeared to be pushing his own agenda, instead of focusing on Trump’s: “Appointing people because they are loyal to Elon doesn’t work.”

Trump is an alpha male who enjoys dominating others. Musk operates his companies in a similar way, Dan McAdams, a psychology professor at Northwestern University, told Newsweek

“Two alphas can probably get along well enough as long as they don’t interfere with each other’s respective domain. 

“The big thing that might come between them would be if Musk threatens Trump’s monopoly on American attention. Trump needs to be the center of everybody’s consciousness—and he has pretty much succeeded in accomplishing that extraordinary feat over the past eight years.

“Musk is certainly a narcissist but his self-worth is caught up in what he achieves. He really cares about building electric cars, sending people into space, and so on.

“Trump does not care about anything except himself. His entire self worth depends on others adoring him and fearing him,” McAdams said.

In an October 23 meeting with House Republicans, Trump praised Musk for his time and dedication to the campaign. Trump said Musk set aside his own business interests for the campaign and didn’t ask for anything in return. 

Then, in what could have ominous implications for the future, Trump said: “Elon won’t go home. I can’t get rid of him. Until I don’t like him.”

The lawmaker sources insisted that Trump was joking.

So “Rocket Man” Musk, now basking in his “co-President” relationship with Trump, no doubt believes he has every reason to feel confident.

But Trump’s choice for Attorney General—Matt Gaetz—should have sent off alarm bells to Musk.

Gaetz made it clear he would do absolutely anything Trump wants. As Attorney General, he would have had the power to investigate and indict anyone Trump dislikes.

Then Gaetz withdrew his name from nomination following increased scrutiny over allegations of sexual misconduct.

And Pam Bondi, Trump’s replacement for Attorney General after Gaetz withdrew, has proven her own reliability. As Florida Attorney General, she solicited a political contribution from Donald Trump while her office deliberated investigating alleged fraud at Trump University and its affiliates.

After Bondi dropped the Trump University case, Trump wrote her a check $25,000 for her re-election campaign. The money came from the Donald J. Trump Foundation.

Musk has received billions of dollars in Federal contracts—among them $733.5 million for the Space Development Agency (SDA) and two for the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO).

Any of these is vulnerable to an accusation of corruption—warranted or unwarranted. At the very least, many—if not all—of those contracts could be cancelled. At the worst, Musk could find himself locked in combat with Federal prosecutors for the length of Trump’s term.

Ernst Rohm felt invulnerable at the start of 1934. As January 20, 2025, rapidly approaches, so does Elon Musk.

Like Rohm, Musk may live to regret the devotion he’s lavished on his choice for Fuhrer.

AMERICA’S “SUPREME JUDGE” VS. “ROCKET MAN”: PART ONE (OF TWO)

In Bureaucracy, Business, History, Law, Law Enforcement, Politics, Social commentary on November 26, 2024 at 12:33 am

On June 30, 1934, German Chancellor Adolf Hitler ordered a massive purge of his private army, the S.A., (Sturmabteilungor). It was carried out by Hitler’s elite army-within-an-army, the Schutzstaffel, or Protective Squads, better known as the SS.      

The Brownshirts (also known as “Storm Troopers”) had been instrumental in securing Hitler’s rise to Chancellor of Germany on January 30, 1933. They had violently intimidated political opponents (especially Communists) and organized mass rallies for the Nazi Party.

But after Hitler reached the pinnacle of power, they became a liability.

Ernst Rohm, their commander, had served as a tough army officer during World War 1. He was one of the few men allowed to use “du,” the personal form of “you” in German, when addressing Hitler.

Rohm urged Hitler to disband the regular German army, the Reichswehr, and replace it with his own undisciplined paramilitary legions as the nation’s defense force.

By 1934, the Storm Troopers numbered approximately three million. By contrast, about 100,000 soldiers served in the Reichswehr, owing to restrictions imposed by the 1919 Versailles Treaty which ended World War 1.

Ernst Rohm

Frightened by Rohm’s ambitions, the generals of the Reichswehr gave Hitler an ultimatum: Get rid of Rohm—or they would get rid of him.

Hitler didn’t hesitate. Backed by armed thugs, he stormed into Rohm’s apartment, catching him in bed with a young S.A. Storm Trooper.

Accusing his onetime friend of treasonously plotting to overthrow him, Hitler screamed: “You’re going to be shot!”

Rohm was not plotting a coup. But the generals had the whip hand—and, for Hitler, that was enough to literally sign Rohm’s death warrant.

Hours later, sitting in a prison cell, Rohm was offered a pistol with a single bullet.

“Adolf himself should do the dirty work,” said Rohm, adding: “All revolutions devour their own children.”

One hour later, Rohm died in a hail of SS bullets.

Earlier throughout that day, so had several hundred of his longtime S.A. cronies. Many of them yelled “Heil Hitler!” as they stood against barracks walls waiting to be shot.

Nazi Germany, Nazi Ss Troops Marching Canvas Print by Everett - Fine Art  America

SS troops on parade

Thirteen days later, addressing the Reichstag, Germany’s parliament, Hitler justified his purge in a nationally broadcast speech:

“If anyone reproaches me and asks why I did not  resort  to the  regular courts of justice, then all  I can say is this: In this hour I was responsible for the fate of the German people, and thereby I became the Supreme Judge of the German people! 

“I gave the order to shoot the ringleaders in this treason, and I further gave the order to cauterize down to the raw flesh the ulcers of this poisoning of the wells in our domestic life.

“Let the nation know that its existence—which depends on its internal order and security—cannot be threatened with impunity by anyone! And let it be known for all time to come that if anyone raises his hand to strike the State, then certain death is his lot.”

1 September 1939 Reichstag speech - Wikipedia

Adolf Hitler addressing parliament

Ninety-one years after Adolf Hitler declared himself “the Supreme Judge of the German people,” the United States faces the same fate under re-elected President Donald J. Trump.

And his Number One victim may turn out to be Elon Musk, the man who played a pivotal role in sending him to the White House. 

Musk, the leader of Space X Tesla and X (formerly Twitter), has donated tens of millions of dollars to pro-Trump super PACs, jumped around the stage behind Trump during campaign rallies, and turned X into a Right-wing cheering squad for Trump.

Trump has said he will make Musk the head of a new “government efficiency commission” aimed at eliminating inefficiency and waste within the federal bureaucracy.

But some—like former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen—have a warning for Musk: “Donald Trump is loyal to one person and one person only…himself. 

“The moment Elon steps an inch out of Trump’s line, despite all he might have done for him, Donald will cut him off, disparage and denigrate him. Elon is no different than me or anyone else similarly situated. It’s just a matter of when.”

Cohen speaks from bitter personal experience. 

A longtime executive of the Trump Organization, Cohen told ABC news in 2011: “If somebody does something Mr. Trump doesn’t like, I do everything in my power to resolve it to Mr. Trump’s benefit.”

In April 2018, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York began investigating Cohen. Charges reportedly included bank fraud, wire fraud and violations of campaign finance law.

Trump executive Michael Cohen 012 (5506031001) (cropped).jpg

Michael Cohen

By IowaPolitics.com (Trump executive Michael Cohen 012) [CC BY-SA 2.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0)%5D, via Wikimedia Commons

On April 9, 2018, the FBI, executing a federal search warrant, raided Cohen’s office at the law firm of Squire Patton Boggs, as well as at his home and his hotel room in the Loews Regency Hotel in New York City.

Agents seized emails, tax and business records and recordings of phone conversations that Cohen had made.

Trump’s response: “Michael Cohen only handled a tiny, tiny fraction of my legal work.”  

Thus Trump undermined the argument of Cohen’s lawyers that he was the President’s personal attorney—and therefore everything Cohen did was protected by attorney-client privilege. 

UGLY–AND UNSPOKEN–TRUTHS ABOUT THE ISRAEL-GAZA WAR

In Bureaucracy, Entertainment, History, Military, Politics, Social commentary on November 25, 2024 at 12:29 am

The 1982 TV-movie, “Inside the Third Reich,” offers a scene that has no doubt echoed throughout Gaza since October 7, 2023.      

It’s 1940, and the British—fed up with being repeatedly attacked by German bombers—are retaliating with an air raid on Berlin. 

For the first time in its seven-year history, Adolf Hitler’s Third Reich is under attack. 

Albert Speer (played by Rutger Hauer), Hitler’s favorite architect, is forced to take cover in an underground bomb shelter. It’s dark and cramped.

Inside the Third Reich - Where to Watch and Stream Online – Entertainment.ie

Rutger Hauer as Albert Speer

A woman sits next to him, sobbing repeatedly: “The German people only want peace. Why won’t they make peace? Why won’t they make peace?”

By which she means—intentionally or not: Why won’t the British simply agree to give Germany whatever it wants?  

There has been a lot of this sentiment coursing through Gaza—and its allies in the Islamic world and elsewhere. It’s not stated as honestly as it is below, but translates to this anyway:

“Why won’t the Israelis allow Hamas to slaughter them—as it did on October 7, 2023?”

(Under the cover of thousands of rockets fired from Gaza, an estimated 1,200 men, women and children were slaughtered by Hamas terrorists in streets, houses, kibbutz communities and at a rave music festival. About 250 others were kidnapped and taken into Gaza.) 

“Why are the Israelis bombing us?”

(Because they don’t like having their men, women and children slaughtered and kidnapped.)

“Why does the United States allow Israel to bomb us?”

(Americans didn’t like it when 3,000 of their own citizens were slaughtered by Islamics on 9/11. Within a month, America began pulverizing Afghanistan—home of 9/11 mastermind Osama bin Laden—and its occupation lasted 20 years.) 

“We only slaughtered 1,200 Israelis. But they have killed—by our estimate—43,985 Palestinians. That’s so unfair.”

(Under this logic, Israel should be allowed to kill only 1,200 Palestinians: “I smacked you in the mouth once, so you should be allowed to smack me in the mouth once. Actually, you shouldn’t be allowed to smack me back at all.”)

“Israel is waging war on civilians—not Hamas.”

(Hamas has deliberately embedded itself among a civilian population: “Ha, ha, you’ll have to kill all these innocent people in order to kill us.” For Israel to accept such sanctuary would be to confer immunity on Hamas and guarantee ceaseless future attacks.)

List of leaders of Hamas - Wikipedia

Emblem of Hamas

“Palestinians didn’t attack Israel—Hamas did.”

(Hamas is overwhelmingly supported by Palestinians. A man who shelters a known killer is by definition an accessory to that killer’s crimes. Yet Hamas refuses to allow civilians to take shelter in its tunnels. Nor does it use its underground network to supply much-needed food and resources for Gazans.) 

“Israel is fighting a war of genocide against Gaza!”

(The universal rallying cry among Gaza residents—and their Islamic and non-Islamic allies—is: “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free.” Which means: When Israel is destroyed and its citizens are slaughtered. For Hamas, no “two-state solution” will do.) 

According to CNN, several videos are circulating online that “show Israeli soldiers in Gaza behaving in offensive and disrespectful ways toward the civilian population. Other videos show soldiers ransacking private homes, destroying civilian property and using racist and hateful language.”

(Soldiers are universally notorious for showing disrespect for their enemies, whether civilian or military. During the Civil War, Union General William Tecumseh Sherman set out on his legendary “March to the Sea” through Georgia in 1864. His soldiers ravaged the countryside, destroyed all sources of food and forage and left behind hungry and demoralized Southerners. 

March to the Sea | Civil War Trails | Civil War Sites in Georgia

Sherman’s March

(As for Israeli soldiers “using racist and hateful language”: During World War II, GIs referred to Germans as “krauts” and to Japanese as “Japs.” During the Vietnam war, grunts called Vietcong and North Vietnamese soldiers “gooks.” In Afghanistan and Iraq, Americans used “ragheads” and “Hajiis” to describe their enemies. 

(War is, by its nature, destructive—of lives, of property, of feelings for humanity.

(William Tecumseh Sherman minced no words in describing its evil: “You cannot qualify war in harsher terms than I will. War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it….You might as well appeal against the thunder-storm as against these terrible hardships of war….

(“They are inevitable, and the only way the people of Atlanta can hope once more to live in peace and quiet at home, is to stop the war….”

(Sherman’s words—which appeared in a September 12, 1864 letter to Atlanta Mayor James M. Calhoun—could be addressed to Hamas and the Gaza residents who support it: 

(“Now that war comes home to you, you feel very different. You depreciate its horrors, but did not feel them when you sent car-loads of soldiers and ammunition, and moulded shells and shot, to carry war into Kentucky and Tennessee, to desolate the homes of hundreds of thousands of good people who only asked to live in peace at their old homes, and under the Government of their inheritance.”)

“The Holy Land.” 

(There is no “holy land.” There is only desert claimed by two warring religions. Both sides believe “God is on our side.” So there will never be peace, only eternal war—until global warming finally makes the Middle East so hot that no one can live there.)

TWO DICTATORS, TWO CRISES: PART TWO (END)

In Bureaucracy, History, Military, Politics, Social commentary on November 21, 2024 at 12:11 am

In the United States, World War II—at least, that part of the war fought in Europe—used to be celebrated in movies and TV shows like “Combat!” and “The Rat Patrol.” Today, it’s largely forgotten, except by veterans groups and the conflict’s rapidly aging veterans.   

But in the Soviet Union, “the Great Patriotic War” against Nazi Germany is still celebrated as the triumph of Soviet strength and determination against horrific odds and losses.

Russian President Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine is unlikely to be remembered so fondly. 

On April 28, 2006, Putin publicly stated that the 1991 collapse of the Soviet Union was “the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century.

“As for the Russian people, it became a genuine tragedy. Tens of millions of our fellow citizens and countrymen found themselves beyond the fringes of Russian territory.”

Putin was sounding a warning: He saw himself as Russia’s savior who would restore its lost empire.

Vladimir Putin 17-11-2021 (cropped).jpg

Vladimir Putin

His invasion of Ukraine—officially called a “special military operation”—was intended as an important step toward that restoration. 

Begun on February 24, the invasion targeted the Ukrainian capital, Kyiv, in an attempt to overthrow the democratic government of President Volodymyr Zelensky. 

Ukrainian troops were outgunned and outnumbered. As in the case of the Soviet Union in 1941, Western military analystss expected the attack to quickly succeed. The Biden administration offered to evacuate Zelensky to safety.

Zelensky refused: “The fight is here; I need ammunition, not a ride.”

But after weeks of combat, Russian forces retreated, stymied by ferocious Ukrainian resistance. 

In July, the last city under Ukrainian control in Luhansk fell to Russia after weeks of artillery bombardment and street fighting. But the Russians made little progress as they tried to conquer the remainder of Donbas.

In late August, after weeks of buildup, Ukraine launched a counteroffensive in the southern region of Kherson. Ukraine deployed newly arrived missile systems supplied by the United States and other Western countries to destroy Russian ammunition dumps and a Russian air base in Crimea.

By September, Ukrainian forces launched a rapid offensive, recapturing much of the northeastern Kharkiv region, including the city of Izium. Previously, the Russians had been using this as a key logistics hub.

Volodymyr Zelensky Official portrait.jpg

Volodymyr Zelensky

On September 21, with Russian forces bogged down or retreating, Vladimir Putin announced the partial mobilization of 300,000 military reservists. All male citizens below 60 are now eligible to be drafted.

There are exceptions: Employees in IT and telecommunications, finance, “systemically-important” mass media outlets and interdependent suppliers, including registered media and broadcasters.

Still, the announcement set off a massive exodus of at least 194,000 Russian men (and their wives or girlfriends) to such neighboring countries as Turkey, Georgia, Kazakhstan and Mongolia. 

During World War II, this would have been unthinkable: Whether driven by patriotism or a desire for vengeance on their German tormentors, Russians at all levels threw themselves into the conflict. 

On the same day Putin announced the mobilization, he threatened to use nuclear weapons to defend not simply Russia but the Ukrainian territory his forces had captured:

“Our country possesses various means of destruction. When the territorial integrity of our nation is threatened, we, of course, will use all the means at our disposal to protect Russia and our people.” 

To underscore his threat, he added: “Those who try to blackmail us with nuclear weapons should know that the weathervane can turn and point towards them.” 

Ukrainian Forces Make Some Gains in North, South > U.S. Department of Defense > Defense Department News

Putin’s threats have heightened world tensions and triggered speculation as to whether he would use nukes—against Ukraine or NATO countries, including the United States.

Volodymyr Zelensky thinks Putin is not bluffing.

President Joe Biden initially assured Americans there was no cause for concern. But since then the United States has stated that it has warned Putin that any use of nuclear weapons would trigger a catastrophic (non-specific) response against Russia.  

Seen against the backdrop of Russia’s titanic victory in “the Great Patriotic War,” Putin’s repeated threats to use nuclear weapons actually underscore Russia’s weakness, not its strength.

Consider:

  • “The Great Patriotic War” lasted almost four years—from June 22, 1941, to May 7, 1945.
  • Russia’s opponent, Nazi Germany, was the most-feared military power in Europe. 
  • The war cost the Soviet Union at least 26 million lives before ending with the Red flag flying over Berlin.
  • Almost the entire western half of the Soviet Union was devastated—first as the Germans overran territory from the Polish border to the gates of Moscow, and then again as the Soviets slowly pushed them back to Germany itself.
  • For Russians, this was truly a “people’s war,” won through massive sacrifice and heroism—and without the use of nuclear weapons, which did not then exist.

Seventy-seven years after the end of World War II:

  • Against the smaller and initially ill-equipped Ukrainian army, Russia has enjoyed a huge advantage in manpower and material. 
  • Yet so low is Russian morale that Putin has been forced to offer huge bribes to foreign mercenaries and even convicted criminals to refill his dispirited legions. 
  • Ukrainians, fueled by patriotism and a desire for vengeance, are fighting—and winning—their own version of “the Great Patriotic War.” 

TWO DICTATORS, TWO CRISES: PART ONE (OF TWO)

In Bureaucracy, History, Military, Politics, Social commentary on November 20, 2024 at 12:05 am

On June 22, 1941, with 134 Divisions at full fighting strength and 73 more divisions for deployment behind the front, the German Wehrmacht invaded the Soviet Union. 

Joseph Stalin, the longtime Soviet dictator, was stunned. The invasion had come less than two years after Germany had signed a non-aggression pact with the Soviet Union.

On August 23, 1939, Stalin had signed the German-Soviet Nonaggression Pact with German Fuhrer Adolf Hitler.

The reason: Each dictator got what he wanted—for the moment. Hitler was planning to invade Poland in a matter of days—and he wanted to avoid a war with the Soviet Union.

And Stalin got what he wanted: The eastern half of Poland.

Joseph Stalin

The agreement stunned the world. Since 1919, Nazis and Communists had fought bitter battles against each other in the streets of Germany during the Weimar Republic.

When this was replaced in 1933 by the Third Reich, German Communists were rounded up and imprisoned, if not murdered, by Hitler’s ruthless secret police, the Schutzstaffel (“Protective Squads”).

For the moment, however, all of that was conveniently forgotten.

And, surprising as it might seem, each dictator harbored a secret respect for the other.

After Hitler launched a blood-purge of his own private Stormtroopers army on June 30, 1934, Stalin exclaimed: “Hitler, what a great man! That is the way to deal with your political opponents!” 

And Hitler was equally admiring of Stalin’s notorious ruthlessness: “After the victory over Russia,” he told his intimates, “it would be a good idea to get Stalin to run the country, with German oversight, of course. He knows better than anyone how to handle the Russians.”  

Adolf Hitler

But Hitler hadn’t forgotten his life’s ambition to conquer the Soviet Union and utterly destroy “the scourge of Jewish-Marxism.”

Stalin received numerous warnings from the United States and Great Britain about the coming invasion. But he dismissed them as efforts by the West to trick him into violating the pact and turning Nazi Germany into his mortal enemy. 

When informed of the attack, Stalin at first believed it was being made by rogue German forces. He refused to order an immediate counterattack.

Upon being convinced that the Wehrmacht intended to wage all-out war, he went into a funk in his dacha and shut himself off from everyone. To his closest associates he wailed: “Lenin left us a great inheritance and we, his heirs, have fucked it all up!”

Meanwhile, the Red Air Force was destroyed on the ground by the awesome Luftwaffe. And the Wehrmacht was advancing at a rate of 25 miles a day.

German soldiers marching through Russia

On July 3, after 10 days of brooding (and probably drinking heavily) in his dacha, Stalin finally took to the airways across the Soviet Union. 

Never a spellbinding orator, Stalin spoke in slow and faltering tones. Nevertheless, his opening words were startling: “Comrades! Citizens! Brothers and sisters! Men of our army and navy! I am addressing you, my friends!”

Stalin had never addressed an audience this way, and he never would again.

He said the “peace loving” Soviet Union had been attacked by “fiends and cannibals” who wanted to restore the rule of the landlords and Czars. He claimed the non-aggression pact with Germany had given the army much-needed time to rearm and reorganize its forces. 

This was accompanied by orders unprecedented in any other army: Those taken prisoner by the Germans were to be considered traitors—and shot or imprisoned. Those suspected of wounding themselves to avoid combat were also subject to summary execution. So were soldiers who had been legitimately wounded in battle but were suspected of inflicting those injuries.

The first two years of the war—1941 to 1943—proved disastrous for the Soviet Union.

During the first six months—June to December, 1941—German armies lured huge Soviet forces into gigantic “cauldron battles,” surrounding and exterminating them. An estimated 5.7 million prisoners of war (POWs) fell into German hands. Of these, at least 3.5 million died in custody.

But then the infamous Russian cold and snows of winter halted the Wehrmacht before Moscow.

In the summer of 1942 German forces once again mounted a ferocious offensive, driving all the way to the Volga—and Stalingrad.

But they became bogged down in bitter house-to-house fighting. With the arrival of winter, Soviet forces surrounded the Wehrmacht’s powerful Sixth Army. The besiegers became the besieged. On February 2, 1943, Field Marshal Friedrich von Paulus surrendered what remained of his army. The battle cost Germany 500,000 men, including 91,000 taken prisoner. 

As the Red Army finally began to go over on the offensive, Stalin relaxed the iron controls that had long stifled creativity on the part of his commanders. 

The infamous political commissars were removed from control over Russian generals. Gold braid and fancy uniforms were manufactured and rushed to the front as morale boosters.

The war would last another two years—costing the Soviet Union at least 26 million citizens—before it ended with the Red flag flying over Berlin.

Almost the entire western half of the Soviet Union was devastated—first as the Germans overran territory from the Polish border to the gates of Moscow, and then again as the Soviets slowly pushed them back to Berlin—the capital of the Third Reich itself.

THIS TIME, VOTE LIKE YOUR WHOLE DEMOCRACY DEPENDS ON IT: PART TWO (END)

In Bureaucracy, History, Law, Law Enforcement, Politics, Social commentary on October 30, 2024 at 12:09 am

In a November 14, 2019 column, “Republicans Can’t Abandon Trump Now Because They’re All Guilty,” freelance journalist Joel Mathis warned: “Trump’s abuses of power mirror those of the GOP as a whole. Republicans can’t turn on him, because doing so would be to indict their party’s entire approach to politics.”        

For example:

  • At the state level, GOP legislatures have passed numerous voter ID laws over the last decade. Officially, the reason has been to prevent non-citizens from voting. In reality, the motive is to depress turnout among Democratic constituencies.
  • When Democrats have won elections, Republicans have tried to block them from carrying out their policies. In Utah, voters approved Medicaid expansion at the ballot box—but Republicans nullified this.
  • In North Carolina, Republican legislators prevented voters from choosing their representatives. Instead, Republican representatives chose voters through partisan sorting. In September, 2019, the state’s Supreme Court ruled the legislative gerrymandered district map unconstitutional.

The upshot of all this, wrote Mathis: “The president and his party are united in the belief that their entitlement to power allows them to manipulate and undermine the country’s democratic processes….The president and today’s GOP share the same sins. It will be difficult for them to abandon each other.”

Republican Disc.svg

GOP logo.svg

On November 3, 2020, 81,255,933 Democratic voters outvoted 74,196,153 Republican voters to elect former Vice President Joseph Biden as the 46th President of the United States.

In the Electoral College—where Presidential elections are actually decided—Biden won by a margin of 306 to 232 votes for Trump

Trump refused to accept that verdict. For the first time in American history, a President demanded a halt to the counting of votes while the outcome of an election hung in doubt.

States ignored his demand and kept counting.

Next, Trump ordered his attorneys to file lawsuits to overturn the election results, charging electoral fraud. Specifically:

  • Illegal aliens had been allowed to vote.
  • Trump ballots had been systematically destroyed.
  • Tampered voting machines had turned Trump votes into Biden ones.

Throughout November and December, 61 cases were filed by Trump and his allies in state and federal courts—in Wisconsin, Arizona, Nevada, Michigan, Minnesota and Georgia, challenging the election results. 

All were withdrawn by Trump’s attorneys or dismissed by Federal judges—some of them appointed by Trump himself.

Losing in the courts, Trump invited two Republican legislative leaders from Michigan to the White House to persuade them to stop the state from certifying the vote.

The Michigan legislators said they would follow the law.

On December 5, Trump called Georgia Governor Brian Kemp and asked him to call a special legislative session and convince state legislators to select their own electors that would support him, thus overturning Biden’s win.

Kemp refused, saying he lacked the authority to do so. 

On December 8, the Supreme Court refused to hear Trump’s bid to reverse Pennsylvania’s certification of Biden’s victory. Representative Mike Kelly (R-PA), a Trump ally, argued that the state’s 2.5 million mail-in were unconstitutional.

The Court’s order read, “The application for injunctive relief presented to Justice [Samuel] Alito and by him referred to the Court is denied.” Although Trump had appointed three of the Court’s Justices, not one of them dissented.

Legal scholars almost unanimously agreed the Court’s action quashed Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election results through the courts.

U.S. Supreme Court building-m.jpg

The Supreme Court

On December 8, Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Missouri United States Senator Roy Blunt joined House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy in blocking a resolution asserting that Biden is the President-elect of the United States. 

Still, Trump pressed on. On December 9, he asked the Supreme Court to block millions of Biden votes from Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

The request came in a filing with the court in a lawsuit brought by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton. 

The Court refused.

* * * * *

The United States has indeed become a polarized country. But it’s not the polarization between Republicans and Democrats, or between conservatives and liberals.

It’s the polarization between Right-wing fanatics intent on enslaving everyone who doesn’t subscribe to their Fascistic beliefs and agenda—and those who resist being enslaved.

Those who hoped that Republicans would choose patriotism over partisanship got their answer on February 5. That was when the Republican-dominated Senate—ignoring the overwhelming evidence against him—acquitted Donald Trump on both impeachment articles.

It’s natural to regret that the United States has become a sharply divided nation. CNN has taken the lead in hand-wringing with a weepy-voiced PSA:

“Our trust has been broken—in our leaders, in our institutions and even some of our friends. And we are hurting, Now more than ever we need each other to listen, to learn from one another, and to rebuild those bonds. Because trust shows we believe in the good in each other. It’s what makes us human. And when we can trust one another, that is when we can truly achieve great things.”

But those who insist on the truth should realize there is only one choice: 

Either non-Fascist Americans will destroy the Republican party and its voters that threaten to enslave them—or they will be enslaved by Republicans and their voters who believe they are entitled to manipulate and destroy the country’s democratic processes.

There is no middle ground. 

THIS TIME, VOTE LIKE YOUR WHOLE DEMOCRACY DEPENDS ON IT: PART ONE (OF TWO)

In Bureaucracy, History, Law, Law Enforcement, Politics, Social commentary on October 29, 2024 at 12:13 am

On November 14, 2019, the CNN website showcased an opinion piece by Jane Carr and Laura Juncadella entitled: “Fractured States of America.”       

And it opened: 

“Some worry that it’s already too late, that we’ve crossed a threshold of polarization from which there is no return. Others look toward a future where more moderate voices are heeded and heard, and Americans can find better ways to relate to each other.

“Still others look back to history for a guide—perhaps for what not to do, or at the very least for proof that while it’s been bad before, progress is still possible.”

Then followed a series of anecdotes. The sub-headlines summed up many of the comments reported. 

  • “I was starting to hate people that I have loved for years.”
  • “Voting for Trump cost me my friends.”
  • “I feel like I’m living in hostile territory.”
  • “Our children are watching this bloodsport.”
  • “A student’s Nazi-style salute reflects the mate.”
  • “Our leaders reflect the worst of us.”
  • “I truly believe I will be assaulted over a bumper sticker.”
  • “It already feels like a cold war.” 

Abraham Lincoln warned: “A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this government cannot endure, permanently, half-slave and half-free. It will become all one thing or all the other.” 

America now faces such a choice:

  1. To submit to the tyrannical aggression of a ruthless political party convinced that they are entitled to manipulate and undermine the country’s democratic processes; or
  2. To fiercely resist that aggression and the destruction of those democratic processes. 

Consider the face-off between President Donald J. Trump and Army Lt. Colonel Alexander Vindman.

Vindman is a United States Army officer who served as the Director for European Affairs for the United States National Security Council. He was also a witness to Trump’s efforts to extort “a favor” from the president of Ukraine.

Alexander Vindman on May 20, 2019.jpg

Lt. Colonel Alexander Vindman

Адміністрація Президента України [CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)%5D

In July, 2019, Trump told his acting chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney, to withhold almost $400 million in promised military aid for Ukraine, which faces increasing aggression from Russia.

On July 25, Trump telephoned Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to “request” a “favor”: Investigate 2020 Democratic Presidential Candidate Joe Biden and his son, Hunter, who has had business dealings in Ukraine.

The reason for such an investigation: To find embarrassing “dirt” on Biden.

“I was concerned by the call,” Vindman, who had heard Trump’s phone call, testified before the House Intelligence Committee. “I did not think it was proper to demand that a foreign government investigate a U.S. citizen, and I was worried about the implications for the U.S. Government’s support of Ukraine.

“I realized that if Ukraine pursued an investigation into the Bidens and Burisma, it would likely be interpreted as a partisan play which would undoubtedly result in Ukraine losing the bipartisan support it has thus far maintained. This would all undermine U.S. national security.”

Trump denounced Vindman as a “Never Trumper”—as if opposing his extortion attempt constituted a blasphemy. Republicans and their shills on the Fox News Network attacked him as well.

As a result, he sought physical protection by the Army for himself and his family. 

(On February 7, 2020,  he was reassigned from the National Security Council at Trump’s order.)

Related image

Donald Trump

* * * * * 

On November 25, 2019, CNN political correspondent Jake Tapper interviewed Representative Adam Schiff on the coming impeachment trial.

What would it mean if Republicans uniformly oppose any articles of impeachment against Trump? asked Tapper.

“It will have very long-term consequences, if that’s where we end up,” replied Schiff.

“And if not today, I think Republican members in the future, to their children and their grandchildren, will have to explain why they did nothing in the face of this deeply unethical man who did such damage to the country.” 

In his bestselling 1973 biography, The Life and Death of Adolf Hitler, British historian Robert Payne harshly condemned the German people for the rise of the Nazi dictator:

“[They] allowed themselves to be seduced by him and came to enjoy the experience….[They] followed him with joy and enthusiasm because he gave them license to pillage and murder to their hearts’ content. They were his servile accomplices, his willing victims.”

Like Hitler, Trump offered his Republican voters and Congressional allies intoxicating dreams: “I will enrich all of you. And I will humiliate and destroy those Americans you most hate.”

For his white, Fascistic, largely elderly audience, those enemies included blacks, atheists, Hispanics, non-Christians, Muslims, liberals, “uppity” women, Asians.

And, again like Hitler, his audience had always possessed these dreams. Trump offered them nothing new. As a lifelong hater, he undoubtedly shared their dreams. But as a lifelong opportunist, he realized that he could use them to catapult himself into a position of supreme power.

He despised his followers—both as voters and Congressional allies—for they were merely the instruments of his will.

For Trump’s supporters in the House and Senate, fear remains their overwhelming motivation. They fear that if they cross him—or simply don’t praise him enough—he will sic his fanatical base on them. And then they will lose their cozy positions—and the power and perks that go with them. 

MY PHILOSOPHY AS A BLOGGER

In History, Politics, Social commentary on October 23, 2024 at 12:59 am

On November 13, 2012, Dave, a conservative friend of mine who reads my blog, sent this email to a friend:  

Warren,

This is the propaganda blog editor friend of mine in San Francisco that I talked about during my presentation last Thursday evening at the Opera House.

As you can see, he is a typical unbiased uournalist…. As I said, I love the guy dearly and truly have the utmost respect for his ability and intellect (although it’s sometimes pointed). Nonetheless, I thought you and others would get a kick out of this blog.I would suggest that you log onto his site and read some of his other postings.  You will then see why I am such an admirer….   

* * * * *

Thus, here is my philosophy as a blogger for those of you who read my blog.

Many years ago I worked as an investigative reporter, covering local police and courts for a small Utah newspaper

As a reporter, I adhered strictly to a policy of objectivity: Reporting only what I knew to be true.  And in crime-related stories, reporting only what I knew I could legally prove to be true.

For example: You might feel absolutely certain that So-and-So committed a crime.  But to avoid libel suits, you had better have the proof in legal documents. And if you can find sources who are willing to back up those legal documents, so much the better.

Another thing: As a straight journalist, you have no right to inject your opinion into anything you write.

So if you write a story about a mayor or councilman you know is corrupt, you don’t have the right to add: “This guy needs to be tossed out of office and indicted.”

If a prosecutor says that, quote him. But your opinion doesn’t matter.

As a blogger I editorialize by pointing out what these facts mean (at least to me) and offering, when possible, a proposed solution to problems.

Take my column about Right-wing columnist Ann Coulter.

On November 13, 2012, I posted a column entitled, “Tears for the Miss America Nazi.”

Coulter had been outraged that Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney had not deprived Barack Obama of a second term as President.

First, I laid out her recent, public weeping over the re-election of President Obama. Then I quoted comedian Bill Maher and political commentator Chris Matthews on their reactions to Coulter’s comment that “There is no hope.”

Ann Coulter

Gage Skidmore from Surprise, AZ, United States of America, CC BY-SA 2.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0&gt;, via Wikimedia Commons

So far, I had adhered to journalistic principles of fairness and objectivity—the who, what, when, where, how and why of journalism.

Only in the last six paragraphs of my column did I venture an opinion.

First, I laid out the historical precedent for what I intended to recommend. When her Fuhrer, Adolf Hitler, committed suicide, Magda Goebbels murdered her six children. Then she and her husband, Nazi propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels, killed themselves. 

Magda Goebbels - Wikipedia

Magda and Joseph Goebbels and their children 

Bundesarchiv, Bild 146-1978-086-03 / CC-BY-SA 3.0, CC BY-SA 3.0 DE <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/de/deed.en&gt;, via Wikimedia Commons

Then I offered the depressed Coulter an option she might not have considered: She could follow the example of Magda (minus the husband and children that Magda had and Coulter lacked).

Not that I expected her to do so.

Frankly, I didn’t consider Ann Coulter a legitimate journalist. She and Rush Limbaugh were the ultimate propaganda icons for the Republican party. They made a career out of attacking the integrity and patriotism of anyone who dared to disagree with them.

For example: Take Coulter’s book Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism.

One of her heroes is Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, who unleashed a wave of hysteria across America with his slanderous accusations of massive Communist infiltration of the Federal Government.

Joseph McCarthy

Coulter maintains that McCarthy was a true patriot, and that he—not his victims—was the true victim of history.

This is on a par with rewriting history as the son of Laventi Beria, Joseph Stalin’s infamous secret police chief, has attempted. He insists that his father was a good man who was forced by Stalin to do bad things.

Jesus was right: “You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” I hugely admire those who seek out the truth and speak it forcefully, without fear or favor.

And I despise those who ride to fame, power or wealth on a carpet of lies and evasions. Although I have written heavily about the infamies of the Right, I realize there is plenty of stupidity, arrogance and criminality on the Left.

I don’t believe that any person, agency, political party or corporation has a monopoly on virtue, intelligence or judgment. On the contrary: Members of agencies, political parties and corporations should be held to the highest level of scrutiny. This is especially true when those institutions hold vast power over the lives of ordinary citizens.

Throughout the last half-century Republicans have dominated American politics—and the lives of Americans. Thus I have written far more about their all-consuming lust for absolute power than I have on the usually secondary role played by Democrats.

TRUMP: “LIBELED” BY THE TRUTH

In Business, History, Law, Medical, Politics, Social commentary on June 21, 2024 at 12:05 am

On October 3, 2022, former President Donald Trump filed a lawsuit against CNN for defamation.

Seeking $475 million in punitive damages, he charged the network with conducting a “campaign of libel and slander” against him.         

Trump claimed that CNN had used its influence to defeat him politically.

“As a part of its concerted effort to tilt the political balance to the left, CNN has tried to taint the Plaintiff with a series of ever-more scandalous, false, and defamatory labels of ‘racist,’ ‘Russian lackey,’ ‘insurrectionist,’ and ultimately ‘Hitler,'” the lawsuit claimed. 

The lawsuit focused largely on CNN’s use of the term, “The Big Lie,” to describe Trump’s false claims that widespread voter fraud cost him the 2020 Presidential election.  

The phrase dates from Adolf Hitler’s use of it in his autobiography, Mein Kampf: People “more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods.”

Trump’s lawsuit claimed “The Big Lie” had been used in referring to him more than 7,700 times on CNN since January, 2021.

In addition, the lawsuit cited instances where CNN compared Trump to Hitler. In a January, 2022 report, Fareed Zakaria provided footage of Germany’s dictator.

CNN.svg

On July 28, 2023, a federal judge in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, threw out Trump’s defamation lawsuit. 

U.S. Judge Raag Singhal, who was nominated by Trump in 2019, said CNN’s words were opinion, not fact, and therefore could not be the subject of a defamation claim.

“CNN’s statements while repugnant, were not, as a matter of law, defamatory,” wrote Singhal. “Being ‘Hitler-like’ is not a verifiable statement of fact that would support a defamation claim.”

Trump, in fact, had zero chance of winning his lawsuit. 

First: Donald Trump is a public figure—arguably the most public figure in the world. Plaintiffs who are public figures or government officials must prove themselves victims of actual malice to collect damages. 

In the landmark case, New York Times v. Sullivan (1964) the Supreme Court declared that actual malice occurs when a statement is made “with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.”

This is a more stringent standard than private citizens have to meet, which is negligence. 

Related image

Donald Trump

Second: Truth is an absolute defense against libel (unless the plaintiff is suing for invasion of privacy).  And Trump’s history as a liar, criminal and traitor has been thoroughly established.

Liar: 

  • He created the lie that Barack Obama—whose birth certificate states unequivocally that he was born in Hawaii—was not an American citizen. The reason: To de-legitimize Obama as a Presidential candidate and President.
  • Throughout 2020, he repeatedly lied about the dangers of COVID-19—attacking medical experts who urged citizens to mask up and social distance. As a result, by the time he left office, 400,000 Americans had died of COVID. 

Wooden Judge Gavel Isolated On White Background

Criminal:

  • He has been forced to shut down his Trump Foundation and forced to pay more than $2 million in court-ordered damages to eight different charities for illegally misusing charitable funds at the Foundation for political purposes.
  • He was also forced to close his unaccredited Trump University for scamming its students. He had promised to teach them “the secrets of success” in the real estate industry—then delivered nothing. In 2016, a federal court approved a $25 million settlement with many of those students.

Traitor:

  • On July 9, 2016, high-ranking members of his Presidential campaign met at Trump Tower with at least two lobbyists who had ties to Russian dictator Vladimir Putin. The reason: To obtain “dirt” on Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton.
  • On July 27, 2016, Trump said at a press conference in Doral, Florida: “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you are able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing [from Democratic Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s computer]. I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.”

These incidents were nothing less than treason—inviting a foreign power, hostile to the United States, to interfere in its Presidential election.

House of Trump, House of Putin: The Untold Story of Donald Trump and the Russian Mafia

Third—and perhaps the most important of all: In a libel suit, the plaintiff must answer—under oath—all questions put to him by the defendant’s attorneys.

Trump, better than anyone, knows the depths of his own criminality. Just as Al Capone knew his notoriety for evil would make it impossible for him to win a libel suit, so does Trump. 

On August 10, 2022, he invoked his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination nearly 450 times during a deposition at the office of New York Attorney General Letitia James, in its probe into the Trump Organization’s business practices.

And during April-May, 2024 trial for paying hush-money to porn “star” Stormy Daniels, he refused to take the witness stand. 

If he refused to testify as a litigant in a libel suit, the suit would be dismissed by the judge.

So why did he file a defamation suit against CNN? 

Money—not by winning an impossible lawsuit, but by raising it from his gullible and Fascistic followers.

He could claim “The court system is rigged against me.” And know that his Stormtrumper army would gladly empty their pockets—to pay his ever-mounting legal expenses.