Much much too long to post here, but an incredibly important read. For several years many have compared the evolution of Nazi Germany to the events transpiring in our Republic. Over those same several years, many- including myself, have tempered the language because it is so inflammatory. To call anyone a Nazi automatically included you in the lunatic tinfoil-on-the-ankles crowd.

The Godwin Divide sets up a series of historically accurate parallels to the rise of fascism in Germany to the rise of fascism here. Interpretation leaves something to be desired but the argument is rather compelling. The most compelling part is how easily it was accomplished!

While I will still urge- and use- restraint on comparing this administration with Hitler's Nazi's, I will be less hesitant to dismiss those who might chose otherwise.

Part I: From the Burning of the Reichtag to the Enabling Acts.

Part I Continued: All the doors are closing

Part II: All the doors are closing

Final part, in full:

A Few Thin Threads: Crossing the Godwin Divide (Part II)
by occams hatchet
Sun Jun 04, 2006 at 10:56:02 AM PDT
Yesterday, in Part I of this diary, I posited that the Supreme Court's recent 5-4 decision to strip public employees of their First Amendment rights was an event which carried us over what I termed the Godwin Divide, or that point at which an analogy drawn to Hitler or the Nazis is no longer simply gratuitous or fatuous, but instead reasoned and appropriate.

That Supreme Court decision has left constitutional democracy in this country hanging by a few very thin threads, and it is up to us to gather and preserve those threads so that we can weave back together the fabric of our democracy.

In order to convey the peril facing the rule of law in this country, I believe it is instructive to examine the series of events that took Germany from a democracy to a dictatorship in a few short months in the 1930s, and led to horrific consequences for not only German citizens, but for the entire world.


(Cross-posted at My Left Wing)

occams hatchet's diary :: ::
Our current president likes to tell us that democracy is incremental, that it can't be expected to develop all at once. History tells us that dictatorship often is incremental as well - and the best-known dictatorship in history is a case study in incrementalism. It is just this incrementalism that allows well-intentioned and otherwise rational people to think, "It can't happen here."

Well, it couldn't happen in Germany in the 1930s, either. At least that's what most Germans believed. In a comment in yesterday's diary thread, MissInformation provided a link to Thom Hartmann reading an excerpt from Milton Mayer's book, They Thought They Were Free : The Germans, 1933-45. Mayer, who witnessed firsthand the rise and fall of the Third Reich from the point of view of an average German, explains how - like the frog in the pot of slowly heating water - the German people allowed themselves to believe that, once things became truly intolerable, their countrymen would join them in rising up as one, and put a stop to the destruction of their democracy:



Each step was so small, so inconsequential, so well explained or on occasion regretted, that unless one were detached from the whole process from the beginning, unless one understood what the whole thing was in principle, what all these little measures - that no patriotic German could resent - must someday lead to, one no more saw it developing from day to day than a farmer in his field sees the corn growing - yet one day it is over his head . . . Each act, each occasion is worse than the last, but only a little worse. You wait for the next, and the next. You wait for the one, great, shocking occasion, thinking that others, when such a shock comes, will join you in resisting somehow.


.
.
In Part I of this diary, we looked at Hitler's ascent to power through his shrewd and cyncial use of the political process in the young German democracy. Today, we'll examine one of the major underpinnings of the German mindset at the time - literally, of the Zeitgeist - and how it led to, not only the rise of the Nazis and Adolf Hitler, but as well to an initially seemingly brilliant but ultimately disastrous military campaign that would cost millions of lives and leave much of Europe in ruins. Let's pick up where we left off yesterday. (And remember, wherever you see the word, "Hitler," replace it with "Bush"; wherever the word "Nazi" appears, replace it with "Republican"; and so on - you get the idea.)

The history of the 20th Century would have been very different if, once having attained the position of Chancellor of Germany, Adolf Hitler had been content to focus within his own borders to solve his country's crushing economic woes. But a larger vision drew him, one that had its roots deep in the past, not only of Germany, but of many other nations. In violation of the Treaty of Versailles that ended World War I, Hitler began to modernize and expand his military, with his eye on conquest of new territories.

Lebensraum (literally, "living space") was the doctrine that held that the Germanic/Aryan peoples needed land to accommodate their growing population. The concept predated the Nazis, but the Nazis adopted it with a vengeance, and built much of their war strategy upon it. In fact, before they ever even invaded Poland, the Germans had drawn up maps, dividing all of Eastern Europe into four Reichskommisariats, or jurisdictions under what was called Generalplan Ost (East). Never mind that all four of the Kommisariats already were inhabited - the Nazis planned to "depopulate" them using rail cars and concentration camps.

Hitler was hell-bent on obtaining Lebensraum for his Aryan nation. He succeeded in annexing Austria and the Czech Sudetenland in 1938 and 1939 without firing a shot, but further expansion would almost certainly require military action - and he had been preparing his military for just that. But it wasn't just weapons and soldiers that Hitler was creating for his expansionist schemes - he was retooling the general staff, to eliminate dissent.

(Once again, we draw on the accounts of Hitler's rise and reign taken from The History Place; unless otherwise noted, all passages in blockquote boxes are taken from The History Place; all emphases added.)
.



Both during and after the Hossbach conference, in which Hitler first revealed his war plans, [Hitler's generals] expressed great fear that the quest for Lebensraum would plunge Germany into a new European war with catastrophic consequences.

But Hitler didn't care about consequences. He was only interested in results. And any attempts to get him to change his mind were a complete waste of time. The generals didn't realize they were dealing with a man who never changed his mind once he made a firm decision and would do anything to achieve a desired goal.

For Hitler, the moment had arrived to clean house, to replace the crusty old generals with younger men eager to serve their Führer and follow orders, regardless of the consequences . . .

On February 4, 1938, he convened a meeting of his Cabinet and had them promulgate a decree stating: "From now on I take over personally the command of the whole armed forces."

General Wilhelm Keitel, Chief of OKWHe, abolished the entire War Ministry, replacing it with the new High Command of the Armed Forces (Oberkommando der Wehrmacht or OKW) headed by himself with complete control of the Army, Navy and Air Force. The nominal post of OKW chief of staff was assigned to General Keitel [snip]

To the German people, Hitler announced that [Werner von] Blomberg [Commander in Chief of the German Armed Forces] and [General Werner von] Fritsch [Commander in Chief of the Army] had both resigned "for reasons of health." Along with their dismissals, Hitler sacked sixteen senior generals. . . Forty-four others were reassigned [snip]

The German armed forces were now in the hands of an amateur, a self-taught strategist whose actual battlefield experience involved serving as a dispatch runner during World War I. Although he had received the Iron Cross 1st Class for bravery, Hitler failed to received a promotion because he appeared to lack leadership potential. Military officers, with their innate understanding of men's character, didn't trust the Austrian corporal enough to make him a sergeant. Now, so many years later, they still didn't trust him, but they didn't have the nerve to oppose him.

Hitler likewise never trusted his generals, preferring to rely on his own gut instincts while surrounding himself with weak-willed yes-men such as Keitel. . . [O]nce he made up his mind, the decision became the unshakable will of the Führer, no matter how disastrous it proved to be, a fatal stubbornness that would send hundreds of thousands of German soldiers to their early graves.



It wasn't just the then-current generals who believed "the Austrian corporal" was unsuited to lead Germany. Others who once had been close to Hitler saw through him, and perceived the Nazis' ultimate fate.



[When he was introduced to Hitler in 1931, German President Paul von] Hindenburg was not impressed and later said Hitler might be suited for Postmaster, but never for a high position such as the Chancellorship of Germany.




An old comrade of Hitler's sent a telegram [in March 1932] to President Hindenburg regarding his new chancellor. Former General Erich Ludendorff had once supported Hitler and had even participated in the failed Beer Hall Putsch in 1923.



"By appointing Hitler Chancellor of the Reich you have handed over our sacred German Fatherland to one of the greatest demagogues of all time. I prophesy to you this evil man will plunge our Reich into the abyss and will inflict immeasurable woe on our nation. Future generations will curse you in your grave for this action." - the telegram to Hindenburg from Ludendorff stated.




Gregor Strasser was one of the founders of the Nazi party, who resigned from the party in December 1932, just before Hitler became Chancellor. He wrote to a longtime friend,



Dr. Martin, I am a man marked by death. We shall not be able to go on seeing each other for long and in your own interests I suggest you do not come here any more. Whatever happens, mark what I say: From now on Germany is in the hands of an Austrian who is a congenital liar [Hitler], a former officer who is a pervert [Ernst Röhm, head of the SA, or Brownshirts], and a clubfoot [Joseph Goebbels]. And I tell you the last is the worst of them all. This is Satan in human form.


Regarding Strasser, Goebbels wrote in his diary: "Strasser is a dead man." Strasser was assassinated in 1934 on Hitler's orders, during The Night of the Long Knives. The assassination was of the physical variety, carried out by a bullet in the back, not the modern Rovian version carried out with lies spread by the media.

So let's step back for a moment, shall we, and return to the present day. Sure, all of this talk about the Nazis and Hitler is wonderful grist for the blog mill, but nothing like this could ever happen here in 21st Century America, could it? I mean, come ON! This is America, f'cryin' out loud! Lebensraum??? Gimme a break! No one believes in that kind of crap anymore -

do they?

The belief in the rightness of Lebensraum was an exact parallel to the American belief in Manifest Destiny, which had fallen out of favor among polite society by the early 1900s, but which by that time had led to the massacre of most of the Indian population in the United States, the displacement of the survivors, and the legalized theft of their property - exactly what happened to the Jews, Gypsies, gays, and other persecuted minorities in Germany in the 20th Century.

Many high-ranking members of the Bush administration ascribe to the philosophies propounded by the Project for a New American Century. Its seminal work, "Rebuilding America's Defenses," published in 2000, put forth its own 21st-Century American take on Lebensraum; i.e., exporting "democracy" to those poor, unenlightened parts of the world which haven't had the opportunity to partake of all of its benefits. It's Manifest Destiny seen through a corporate lens. In other words, "Let's invade any place that doesn't already do business with us, steal their resources, exploit their labor, and create a new generation of consumers for our products." In PNAC parlance, Lebensraum means, "new markets for Big Business expansion." Here's a sampling of what the heartwarming, All-American, liberty-lovin', PNAC had to say in "Rebuilding America's Defenses" - oh, before we go on, remember our little game? That's right, wherever in the quotes below, you see the word, "America" or "U.S.," substitute "Germany."



[America must have] a blueprint for maintaining U.S. preeminence, precluding the rise of a great power rival, and shaping the international security order in line with American principles and interests. [snip]

America should seek to preserve and extend its position of global leadership by maintaining the preeminence of U.S. military forces

[Gary Schmitt, executive director of PNAC, said, "What we require is] a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad



One of the differences between Hitler and BushCo is that, while Hitler appeared to be motivated by power and a desire to be the hero of the Aryan nation in its conquest and takeover of the world in pursuit of Lebensraum, BushCo is motivated almost purely by the desire to make money. And, in case you think the year 2000 - when Rebuilding American's Defenses first came out - was a long time ago, here's what Our Dear Leader had to say at the West Point graduation last week:



The message has spread from Damascus to Tehran that the future belongs to freedom -- and we will not rest until the promise of liberty reaches every people and every nation.


(Remember: "liberty" and "freedom" = "capitalism.")

Lebensraum and Manifest Destiny both held that because of their respective adherents' singular attributes as nations - their "exceptionalness" - each nation had a special mission to expand its empire. Of course, this meant that they would have to drive the existing inhabitants from their lands, but no matter - Germany and the United States were exceptional, and their exceptional-ness had to be spread across as great an area as possible.

In the May 29th issue of The Nation magazine (subscription only), Andreas Huyssen, Professor of German and Comparative Literature at Columbia University, writes about how the Germans' view of themselves as exceptional in the 19th and early 20th centuries resulted in their increased susceptibility to the "Aryan superiority" message of the Nazis, and the denigration of the democratic process as inferior to cultural mores - and the parallels to current attempts among the right wing in this country to claim a similar moral superiority, while undermining the Constitution:



After the failure of the 1848 attempt to bring parliamentary and constitutional rule to Germany, the embrace of Kultur often came with the dismissal of parliamentary politics as somehow un-German, and it underlay Germans' feelings of superiority over their Western neighbors--an attitude that would merge seamlessly with Nazi racial theory and imperial aggression. It was precisely because Kultur shunned the realm of politics that the cultured elites collapsed so easily and often eagerly when the Nazis staged their rule as a cultural revolution.

But the dangers are much more real in the United States. The intense focus on cultural issues like sex in the movies, evolution and creationism, even academic curriculums, distracts from the hollowing out of constitutional checks and balances, the dismantling of international law and domestic threats to civil rights. Even more ominous, the "war on terror" and the "march of democracy" have increasingly taken on shadings of a war of cultures. As German historian Heinrich von Treitschke argued more than a century ago, once war becomes war of cultures, there is no end to it.



So - here we are. What can we learn from the rise of Hitler and the Nazis? And why the Nazis, anyway? Why not Franco, or Pol Pot, or Mussolini, or Genghis Khan, or Napoleon?

Why the Nazis? Because of the very fact that the average person in this country "gets it" about the Nazis. For the very reason that Godwin propounded his law during the infancy of the Internet - because the Nazis provide an unmistakable touchstone, a benchmark for how horribly things can go wrong in a country that considers itself cultured, compassionate, Christian, aware and discerning, a touchstone that many have referred to out of laziness or hyperbole, but which, notwithstanding the hyperbole, provides a cautionary tale.

In this diary, I have not called anyone a Nazi (except, of course, for the actual Nazis of Hitler's era). And, yes, of course, I realize that there are differences in circumstance and context between Germany in the 1930s and the United States at the turn of the 21st Century. Perfectly identical circumstances do not exist between anything in the past, and current events - ever. So please, give it a rest.

But we study history for a reason. We do so to try to take away lessons that can help guide us in our actions in the present day. Whether one chooses to see parallels in history, or dismiss things in the past as singular events having no relation to the present, is up to each individual. The current cabal in power would love nothing better than for the American people to forget history, history of all sorts, from the very recent history of what was said by those in power to a trusting American public and Congress about the threat posed by Iraq (vis-à-vis the ostensible threat posed by Iran), to the more distant history of the government's excesses and coverups that led to the reforms of the 1970s, including FISA, to the history we we have looked at in this diary.

I, however, choose not to ignore the obvious parallels that history provides us.

George Bush and the Republicans have used 9/11 to foist all kinds of constitutional - and sometimes physical - horrors upon the American people and the world, all in the name of "the war on terror," brilliantly maintaining - matter-of-factly - all the while that the American way of life is threatened by any number of brown-skinned people from faraway lands who hate our freedoms. The President (and some Congresspeople) already have stated that their most important duty is to preserve the "safety" of the American people - not the Constitution, mind you, which is what their oath of offfice states, but the physical lives of Americans. When "national security" trumps everything - watch out. Yet the reality is that while some American lives and a few American buildings may in fact be threatened by terrorists based abroad, the American way of life is far more threatened by oligarchs within our borders who truly hate that under the Constitution, every American's fundamental rights are recognized and guaranteed.

One of Mr. Bush's new favorite words is "incremental," as in, "our progress [in Iraq] is incremental." Well, totalitarianism often works the same way: it sneaks up on you, little by little, until, like the frog in the pan of water, before you're even aware of it, you're cooked. If you do it matter-of-factly, the mass of people can't believe that it's happening, because everything seems to be calm and rational. Right up until the moment the shower doors closed at Auschwitz, many Jews - indeed, many Germans - did not believe that murder on such a grand scale could possibly be committed by people so seemingly rational, calm and educated. So matter-of-fact.

The fact of the matter is that every door of government accountability has been nailed shut by this administration and Congress. The only recourse for holding the United States government accountable now is through elections that are free, fair and open. Clearly, given what has been shown to have happened in 2000 and 2004, taking the availability of such elections for granted no longer is a rational option. Given the Supreme Court's decision the other day on government whistleblowers, even if a government employee knew of election malfeasance, they would not be guranteed First Amendment protection if they decided to go the press with such a revelation - they "might be," the decision said. And the Bush administration has already explicitly stated that it will go after leakers and the reporters who write about those leaks.

Some will argue that we needn't worry about a descent into dictatorship, that circumstances are far different than existed in Germany. For example, in yesterday's comments, the point was made that once military defeats start piling up, downfall of a dictatorship is inevitable. It's true that one thing working in our favor is the abject demonstrable failure of the PNAC's grand scheme, manifest in the debacle in Iraq. Given a perfect opportunity to export democracy, to demonstrate the clear ideological superiority of the American Way (as viewed by the warped minds at PNAC), PNAC's vision was shown to be an hallucination brought on by delusions of grandeur and a completely wrong-headed concept of what constitutes American exceptionalism. (For eerie parallels, look at how, shortly after George Bush took office, Dick Cheney and the oil industry had drawn up a map of Iraq, showing the future division of oil resources - in exactly the same way that the Nazis parceled out Eastern Europe, mentioned above.)

Under Hitler, the deluded belief in German exceptionalism was able to survive as long as the majority of Germans saw only (from their sheltered points of view) success at home and on the battlefield from 1933 until about 1942, when the German army's crushing defeat at Stalingrad marked the turning point of the war in Europe. As long as the Nazis were conquering new territory and winning the war, it was easier for them to maintain popular support at home. The growing crescendo of bad news from Iraq is having the same effect in present-day America.

But my fear is that none of that may matter. Despite the care taken by our Founding Fathers to design a framework that was flexible enough to adapt to a changing world, the Constitution is still a flawed document. The Founding Fathers depended upon at least one of the three branches remaining independent and accountable - or, at the very least, the maintenance of a free and independent press. They also relied on the good faith of the members of government - faith which this administration has violated openly and repeatedly and defiantly. Who's to say that, even if we have free, fair and open elections in November, and a Democratic majority takes both houses of Congress, and an impeachment process takes place, and the President is somehow found guilty by the Supreme Court (hah!), that he will not at that point assign the same validity to that decision as he has to many, many others emanating from the legislative and judicial branches: in other words, that he will tell the Congress and the Supreme Court to stick it?

Our democracy is hanging by a few very thin threads. Now is not the time to back away from hard truths - otherwise, we, like the frog in the pot, are cooked.

I am afraid by the time the mass public wakes up, we shall all be dead

Showers anyone?

Guess that would take care of the high price of gas, huh ya think?

Conservatives are worried, too.