This Day in History (1933) – The Reichstag Fire

The usual caveat applies - I don't endorse Hitler.

The day after Adolf Hitler took power, Josef Goebbles wrote the following in his diary:

“During discussions with the Führer we drew up the plans of battle against the red terror. For the time being, we decided against any direct countermeasures. The Bolshevik rebellion must first of all flare up; only then shall we hit back.”

Five days after Hitler took power [4 Feb 1933], his cabinet issued a decree [ratified by President Hindenburg] named Decree for the Protection of the German People.  This decree placed constraints on the press and authorized the police to ban political meetings and marches, effectively hindering electoral campaigning.  Hermann Göring, who had become acting Interior Minister and thus head of the police in Prussia, recruited 50,000 SA and SS members into the police. The ensuing campaign of violence and terror was waged against Communists and other Nazi opponents [the Social Democrats were a close second to the Communists in taking Nazi abuse].  The SA’s job was to fight in the streets, break heads/legs/any other body parts, to break up meetings of opposing political parties, and to cause general mayhem.   On February 24th, the Gestapo raided Communist headquarters. Hermann Göring claimed that he had found "barrels of incriminating material concerning plans for a world revolution".  However, the alleged subversive documents were never published. 

Then, on February 27^th, the Reichstag burned.  Conveniently, this was only a week before the March 5^th election.  A young Communist named Marinus van der Lubbe [who was a Communist until 1929] was apprehended at the scene.   Van der Lubbe made a full confession, but there were [and still are] many skeptics.  The UK’s Daily Express, Seftan Delmer opined the next day that the Nazis set the fire.  Fifteen months after the fire, an SA Gruppenführer named Karl Ernst confessed he and a group of fellow SA members set the blaze [William L. Shirer wrote as much in his The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich].  Regardless of who set the blaze, Hitler had his pretext for dealing with the Communists in his own way.  He initially wanted to shoot all the Communists.  The following day, the government issued its Reichstag Fire Decree.  Thousands of Communists were rounded up and thrown into jail.  Those who couldn’t be found went into hiding.

Marinus van der Lubbe

Karl Ernst

Here’s the Reichstag Fire Decree in its entirety.  For what the Nazis wanted to do, they didn’t need a lot of words – they just came right out and said it.  Gone were the days one could do anything he wanted, associate with anyone he wanted.  The German state could tap your phones and read your mail.  The state could search your house.  The state could seize any or all of your property.  They could do all of this without the niceties of getting a warrant.  The police state was born here.  The Weimar Republic's days were numbered.

Decree of the Reich President for the Protection of the People and State of 28. February 1933

On the basis of Article 48, Section 2, of the German Constitution, the following is decreed as a defensive measure against Communist acts of violence that endanger the state:

§ 1

Articles 114, 115, 117, 118, 123, 124, and 153 of the Constitution of the German Reich are suspended until further notice. Thus, restrictions on personal liberty, on the right of free expression of opinion, including freedom of the press, on the right of assembly and the right of association, and violations of the privacy of postal, telegraphic, and telephonic communications, and warrants for house searches, orders for confiscations as well as restrictions on property are permissible beyond the legal limits otherwise prescribed.

§ 2

If any state fails to take the necessary measures to restore public safety and order, the Reich government may temporarily take over the powers of the highest state authority.

§ 3

State and local authorities must obey the orders decreed by the Reich government on the basis of § 2.

§ 4

Whoever provokes, appeals for, or incites the disobedience of the orders given out by the supreme state authorities or the authorities subject to them for the execution of this decree, or the orders given by the Reich government according to § 2, can be punished – insofar as the deed is not covered by other decrees with more severe punishments – with imprisonment of not less than one month, or with a fine from 150 to 15,000 Reichsmarks.

Whoever endangers human life by violating § 1 is to be punished by sentence to a penitentiary, under mitigating circumstances with imprisonment of not less than six months and, when the violation causes the death of a person, with death, under mitigating circumstances with a penitentiary sentence of not less than two years. In addition, the sentence may include the confiscation of property.

Whoever provokes or incites an act contrary to the public welfare is to be punished with a penitentiary sentence, under mitigating circumstances, with imprisonment of not less than three months.

§ 5

The crimes which under the Criminal Code are punishable with life in a penitentiary are to be punished with death: i.e., in Sections 81 (high treason), 229 (poisoning), 306 (arson), 311 (explosion), 312 (flooding), 315, paragraph 2 (damage to railways), 324 (general public endangerment through poison).

Insofar as a more severe punishment has not been previously provided for, the following are punishable with death or with life imprisonment or with imprisonment not to exceed 15 years:

1. Anyone who undertakes to kill the Reich President or a member or a commissioner of the Reich government or of a state government, or provokes such a killing, or agrees to commit it, or accepts such an offer, or conspires with another for such a murder;

2. Anyone who under Section 115, paragraph 2, of the Criminal Code (serious rioting) or of Section 125, paragraph 2, of the Criminal Code (serious disturbance of the peace) commits these acts with arms or cooperates consciously and intentionally with an armed person;

3. Anyone who commits a kidnapping under Section 239 of the Criminal Code with the intention of making use of the kidnapped person as a hostage in the political struggle.

§ 6

This decree enters into force on the day of its promulgation.

Berlin, 28. February 1933

The Reich President von Hindenburg

The Reich Chancellor Adolf Hitler

The Reich Minister of the Interior Frick

The Reich Minister of Justice Dr. Gürtner

The following are the articles of the Weimar Constitution that were affected by the Reichstag Fire Decree:

Article 114 The rights of the individual are inviolable. Limitation or deprivation of individual liberty is admissible only if based on laws. Persons deprived of their liberty have to be notified, at the next day on the latest, by which authority and based on which reasons the deprivation of their liberty has been ordered; immediately they have to be given the opportunity to protest against the deprivation of liberty.

Article 115 Every German's home is an asylum and inviolable. Exceptions are admissible only if based on a law.

Article 117 Privacy of correspondence, of mail, telegraphs and telephone are inviolable. Exceptions are admissible only if based on a Reich law. Article 118 Every German is entitled, within the bounds set by general law, to express his opinion freely in word, writing, print, image or otherwise. No job contract may obstruct him in the exercise of this right; nobody may put him at a disadvantage if he makes use of this right. There is no censorship; in case of the cinema, other regulations may be established by law. Also in order to combat trashy and obscene literature, as well as for the protection of the youth in public exhibitions and performances legal measures are permissible.

Article 123 All Germans have the right to assemble peacefully and unarmed; such assemblies do not require any prior notification or special permit. A Reich law can require prior notification for assemblies taking place in the open, and it can, in case of imminent danger for public security, stipulate that such assemblies in the open may be prohibited. Article 124 All Germans are entitled, for means which do not conflict with penal laws, to form clubs or societies. This right may not be limited by preventive measures. These regulations also apply for religious societies. Every club is free to acquire legal capacity. No club may be denied of it because of it pursuing political, socio-political or religious goals.

Article 153 Property is guaranteed by the constitution. Laws determine its content and limitation. Expropriation may only be decreed based on valid laws and for the purpose of public welfare. It has to be executed with appropriate compensation, unless specified otherwise by Reich law. Regarding the amount of the compensation, the course of law at general courts has to be kept open in case of a controversy, unless Reich laws specify otherwise. Expropriations by the Reich at the expense of the states, communities or charitable organizations may only be executed if accompanied by appropriate compensation. Property obliges. Its use shall simultaneously be service for the common best. Coming March 23rd:  The Enabling Act

This Day in History [1933] - Hitler's First Public Speech as Chancellor

Disclaimer: this is not an endorsement of Adolf Hitler or the Nazis.  

When Hitler became Chancellor of Germany on January 30, 1933 he convinced President von Hindenburg to dissolve the Reichstag and call new elections, scheduled to be held on March 5^th.  Eleven days later [February 10^th] he made his first public speech at the Berlin Sportpalast.  It was a campaign speech but this one was different.  For once, the Nazis had all the resources of the government at their disposal.  This speech was filmed, and it was broadcast nationwide over German radio.  In practically every documentary I’ve seen about Hitler and Nazi Germany [and there have been many], there are excerpts from this speech.  It shows how Hitler could build tension in a room.  He begins quietly, as if making his audience shut up and pay attention.  Then as the speech continues, he becomes more animated – his audience is spellbound.  And when he finishes the entire arena erupts in ecstasy.  Hitler’s speeches during this campaign are pretty much the same – they all hit on the same themes.  They never provide any details about how Hitler is going to fix Germany.  They are clarion calls to make Germany great again.    

A good chunk of the speech was an indictment of what he called the ‘November parties’, the who ruled Germany in a variety of coalitions since the founding of the Weimar Republic: German Social Democratic Party (SPD), the Catholic Centre Party (Zentrum), and the liberal German Democratic Party (DDP).  In Hitler’s view, the November parties were responsible for all the misery the German people had suffered since the end of World War I in November 1918.  And by addressing all the November parties as Marxists, he lumps them together with the Communists, of whom many were afraid.  

“I have therefore rejected it ever come before this people, and make cheap promises. It can stand no one here against me and bear witness that I have ever said, the resurgence of Germany is only a matter of a few days. Again and again I preach, the resurgence of the German nation is the question of the recovery of the inner strength and health of the German people. So, as I even 14 years now worked, constantly and without becoming ever wavering in the development of the movement, and so how I managed seven man to these to come from 12 million, so I want and so we want to build and work on recovery of our German people.”  My interpretation: Hitler claims to have built the Nazi party from nothing into a huge national movement.  He can do the same for the German nation if given the chance.  And by the way, making Germany great again will take time; it won’t happen overnight.  

“I want to promise you that this resurrection of our people comes by itself. We want to work, but the people themselves, it must help. It should never believe that sudden freedom, happiness and life from heaven is given.”  My interpretation: if you want a better life, you’ll have to work for it.  

“We want guide all of our work from a knowledge, a belief: faith never on anybody's help, never to help, which is located outside of our own nation, of our own people! The future of the German people themselves alone lies in us.”   This alludes to the Dawes and Young plans, which were meant to help Germany pay the war reparations as part of the Treaty of Versailles.  Hitler opposed both plans because the German economy cratered after October 1929, when American banks called in their loans after the stock market crash.  Hitler blamed the subsequent massive unemployment on the November parties, for they were the ones that agreed to the plans with the American banks.  

“The fourth item on our program dictates that we rebuild our Volk not according to theories hatched by some alien brain, but according to the eternal laws valid for all time. Not according to theories of class, not according to concepts of class.”  My interpretation:  the Communists don’t have the answer for Germany’s problems.  It took fourteen years for the Marxists to bring Germany to ruin.  They’ve had their chance to make things good and right and they blew it – why trust them again?  

“Never I will remove me from the task to eradicate Marxism and its side-effects from Germany. Never I will be here inclined to compromise. One must be winners here: either Marxism or the German people.”  No need for interpretation here – it’s “us” or the Marxists.  

“By I fight for the German future, I fight for the German place and must fight for the German farmers. He gives us the people in our towns and cities. He has been the eternal source for millennia, and it must be preserved. And I'm going to the second pillar of our nationhood, then further on to the German workers to that German workers that no stranger should be more, and may be in Germany in the future, and we want to return again in the community of our people, for, we will be blast the gates, that he moves with in the German community as a carrier of the German nation.”  Farmers and workers of Germany, the Nazis are your friends.  

"We combat the phenomena of our parliamentary democratic systems, so we go over immediately to a twelfth point: restore cleanliness in our people, cleanliness in all areas of our lives, cleanliness in our management, cleanliness in public life, but also cleanliness in our culture. We want to recover mainly the German honor, restore respect for it and the commitment to her and want to burn in our hearts the commitment to freedom, want to titillate but again our people so that a real German culture, with a German art, with its German architecture, a German music, which should reflect the soul. And we want to awaken the awe of the great tradition of our people, bring the deep reverence for the achievements of the past, the humble reminder of the great men of German history."  Hindsight is 20/20 - here he wants to rid German culture of non-German elements [Jewish elements, perhaps?].  

“We want to introduce our youth again in this wonderful realm of our past, the work and creativity of our ancestors; humbly she should bow before those who lived before us and have created, worked, and worked, that we can live on. And we want to educate these young people especially to the reverence for those who have made the heaviest sacrifices once for our people life and future of our people.”  Again hindsight being 20/20, he’s telegraphing the creation of the Hitler Youth here.  

After talking for almost an hour, he finally makes the sales pitch - “For 14 years, have the parties of decay, of November, the revolution led the German people and abused, destroyed for 14 years, decomposed and resolved. It is not presumptuous when I step today before the nation and implore you: People of Germany, give us four years and then pass judgement upon us! People of Germany, give us four years and I swear to you: just as we, just as I have entered into this office, so will I leave it.”  

  

The Speech  - https://youtu.be/zu9aBznOIC8

Coming February 27^th:  The Reichstag Fire

This Day in History [1933] - Hitler Takes Power

Disclaimer: this is not an endorsement of Adolf Hitler or the Nazis.  

On this day in 1933, German President Paul von Hindenburg asked Nazi leader Adolf Hitler to become Chancellor of Germany and form a government.  Beginning with the failed Beer Hall Putsch in November 1923, this was the culmination of a ten-year effort by Hitler and the Nazis to achieve supreme power in Germany.  Hitler had tried to take power by force with the Beer Hall Putsch, but it was unsuccessful.  After the failed coup attempt, Hitler was tried and jailed for treason.  He served eight months of a five-year prison sentence.  During his time of confinement, Hitler decided the only way to achieve power was to do so legally.  He also wrote his memoir, Mein Kampf.  It was only part autobiography, in which he ranted against democrats, Communists, and Jews, on whom he blamed all of society’s ills.  Mein Kampf was also Hitler’s blueprint for what was to come.  Here are the “cliff notes” on what led to this day in history.

The Germany that came out of the First World War was not the Germany that entered it.  Germany was an empire, ruled by the Hohenzollern monarchs, the last of whom was Kaiser Wilhelm II.  After over four years of war, Germany’s military leaders [Field Marshal von Hindenburg and General Ludendorff] concluded the war could not end with a German military victory.  The German population, exhausted by four years of war and the British blockade, lost faith in the Kaiser.  Prince Max of Baden took charge of a new government as Chancellor and negotiated for a peace based on Woodrow Wilson’s Fourteen Points.  His government included representatives of the largest party in the Reichstag, the Social Democratic Party of Germany [leader:  Friedrich Ebert].  Germany’s High Seas Fleet had been in port since the Battle of Jutland in 1916.  Admiral Reinhard Scheer decided there would be one last “glory ride” against the British Royal Navy to restore the “valor” of the German Navy.  German sailors in Kiel, who viewed this as a suicide mission, would have none of this and mutinied.  The sailors formed a soldiers' and a workers' council on the Bolshevik Soviet model.  Soldiers and workers around Germany sympathized with the Kiel sailors and formed councils of their own. 

This revolution spread throughout Germany.  While Kaiser Wilhelm was at his army headquarters in Spa, Belgium, he learned that revolution spread to Berlin.  On November 9^th, SPD deputy chairman Philipp Scheidemann declared that the Kaiser had abdicated and that Germany was a republic.  This was news to the Kaiser, who had hoped to lead the army back to Germany to put down the revolution.  General Wilhelm Groener [who replaced Ludendorff in late October 1918] told Wilhelm he lost the confidence of the army and the army would not follow him.  Wilhelm went into exile in the Netherlands to live out his remaining years.  The same day as Wilhelm’s “abdication” Prince Max handed over his office to Friedrich Ebert.  Ebert and Groener soon made an agreement.  In return for the army’s pledged loyalty to the new civilian government, Ebert promised to call a constituent assembly, take prompt action against leftist [especially Communist] uprisings, and allow professional officers to maintain military command.   The army and the paramilitary Freikorps indeed put down leftist uprisings, the biggest of which was the Spartacist Uprising in January 1919.

Under the terms of the Treaty of Versailles that ended World War I, Germany was to pay the Allies reparations [£6,600,000,000].  Part of the reparations to the Allies [mostly France] was to come in the form of raw materials [coal, timber].  So onerous were the payments in raw industrial materials that German factories were unable to function, and by January 1923 Germany defaulted on its reparation payments.  After the German default, France occupied Germany’s Ruhr region to extract the reparations themselves.  As this happened, the German economy went further into a tailspin.   Before the occupation, hyperinflation was so bad one had to pay billions of Reichsmarks to pay for a loaf of bread.  The US stepped in with the Dawes Plan to loan Germany money to pay their reparations debts.  This helped stabilize the German economy, but unemployment was still at 15 percent.  When the stock market crashed and the Great Depression began, the US banks called in their loans.  Once they did the German economy sank into the abyss.  Millions more were put out of work.  Unemployment rose to 30 percent.  The government didn’t have any answers to the problems that beset Germany.

Germans lost confidence in the economy and in their political institutions.  The Weimar Republic was the first attempt to establish constitutional liberal democratic government in Germany.  Democracy was new to Germany, and many Germans didn’t like it.  They preferred the old, imperial order.  The Weimar Republic represented a compromise: German conservatives and industrialists had transferred power to the Social Democrats to avert a possible Bolshevik-style takeover.  The January 1919 National Assembly elections produced the Weimar coalition, which included the SPD, the German Democratic Party (DDP), and the Center Party. The anti-republican, conservative German National People's Party (DNVP) and the German People's Party (DVP) combined received 10.3 percent of the vote. The Independent Social Democratic Party of Germany, which had split from the SPD during the war, won 8 percent of the vote. But the lifespan of the Weimar coalition was brief, and the Weimar political system, which was achieving gains for both extreme left and extreme right, soon became radicalized.²  Such was the fragmentation of Weimar politics that during its 14-year lifespan, there were 20 different governments.  The Social Democrats came to be identified with the onerous Versailles Treaty and the economic struggles of Germany.  The National Socialist German Workers Party [the Nazis] and the Communists grew their support at the expense of the above-named parties.

Nazism became a true mass movement only after the beginning of the Great Depression.  But even then, the Nazis never gained a majority of the people's vote. Nazism generally appealed to only a third of the German people, and these came from its lower classes, armed forces and war industries.  The Great Depression gave Hitler a chance to blame the status quo, and he expertly exploited the people's misery to increase his political power. In elections held in September 1930, the Nazis won 18 percent of the vote, increasing their seats in the Reichstag to 107 [up from the 12 seats they achieved in 1928], second only to the Social Democrats [143].  By July 1932, the Nazis held 230 seats in the Reichstag.  They were the largest party in Germany, but yet they did not govern.  Between the Nazis and the Communists, they had a “negative majority” in the Reichstag.  They wouldn’t serve in a government together, nor would they become coalition partners with other parties in the Reichstag.  Chancellor Heinrich Brüning [German Center Party] tried to stem the effects of the Great Depression by tightening credit and rolling back wage increases.  These moves were unpopular.  Brüning lost the confidence of the Reichstag, but was able to govern via Article 48 of the Weimar Constitution, which allowed Hindenburg to rule by decree. 

Hindenburg fired Brüning and replaced with Franz von Papen [at General Kurt von Schleicher’s urging].  Von Papen had almost no support in the Reichstag.  Like Brüning before him, he relied on Article 48 presidential decrees to govern.  He lasted six months, after which the Nazis forced a no-confidence vote in the Reichstag and hence another election.  The Nazis lost 34 seats in November 1932, and von Papen replaced by von Schleicher himself.  Von Schleicher tried to split the Nazi party by aligning himself with Gregor Strasser, a left-wing opponent of Hitler’s within the party.  But unbeknownst to von Schleicher, Hitler had almost total confidence from other Nazi party leaders.  Von Schleicher tried to make common cause with Social Democratic labor unions and the Christian labor unions, but they wanted nothing to do with him.  Given this lack of support, von Schleicher tried to get Hindenburg to dissolve the Reichstag.  Instead, Hindenburg fired him.  Von Papen had taken note of the Nazis’ declining support between July-November 1932.  Von Papen, other politicians, and several other industrialists and businessmen convinced Hindenburg that since the Nazis’ electoral support was in decline, they could “control” Hitler.  On January 30, 1933 Hitler got the call to form a government.  Hitler’s first cabinet consisted of only three Nazis [himself, Herman Göring, and Wilhelm Frick].  Upon his appointment as Chancellor, Hitler convinced Hindenburg to hold new Reichstag elections in March 1933 to break the political stalemate.

To be continued…

Hitler’s First Cabinet

Office	Incumbent	Political Party
Chancellor	Adolf Hitler	Nazi
Vice Chancellor	Franz von Papen	None
Minister of Foreign Affairs	Konstantin von Neurath	None
Minister of the Interior	Wilhelm Frick	Nazi
Minister of Finance	Lutz Graf Schwerin von Krosigk	None
Minister of Defense	Werner von Blomberg	None – career military
Minister without Portfolio	Hermann Göring	Nazi
Minister of Justice	Franz Gűnter	German National People’s Party
Minister of Economics	Alfred Hugenberg	German National People’s Party
Minister of Food and Agriculture	Alfred Hugenberg	German National People’s Party
Minister of Labor	Franz Seltde	German National People’s Party
Minister of Postal Affairs	Paul Freiherr von Eltz-Rübenach	None
Minister of Transport	Paul Freiherr von Eltz-Rübenach	None

¹Weimar Germany and the Rise of the Nazis, Excerpted from East Germany: A Country Study, Stephen R. Burant, ed. (Washington, D. C.: Federal Research Division of the Library of

Congress, 1987), pg. 5.

²Ibid., pg. 3-4.

The Kremlin's Influence

Two months ago, the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) released the results of a 16-month study it conducted with the Center for the Study of Democracy (CSD).  The study looked at five countries [Hungary, Bulgaria, Latvia, Slovakia, and Serbia] to determine the impact of Russian economic influence during 2004-14 and the possible correlation to the “general decline in governance standards.”    CSIS and CSD determined Russia “has cultivated an opaque network of patronage across the region that it uses to influence and direct decision-making.”  They describe an “unvirtuous circle” of Russian influence, a circuitous flow that begins with Russian penetration of either a country’s economy or political system, each feeding the other that results in what they call a “state capture.”  According to CSIS, the “end game” is to re-establish the bipolar world of the Cold War and weaken globalization.  In a bipolar world, the Russians feel they can wield influence like they could during the Cold War.  They want to influence events through manipulation of media, business, society and politics.  In so doing, they hope to weaken NATO and the European Union.  

According to CSIS/CSD, Western Europe and the United States thought their work was done in Central and Eastern Europe once several nations had become members of both NATO and the European Union.  They thought that since these countries are members of NATO and the EU, good governance would automatically follow.  Since 2004 interest and attention to good governance in these regions waned.  The 2008 Great Recession happened and shook democratic and economic institutions to their core.  And from what this report outlines, Europe as a whole was shaken to its very core and has yet to recover to the status quo ante.  A group of leaders from Central and Eastern Europe wrote and open letter to Barack Obama in 2009.  The letter told him the Russians were conducting economic warfare [both covert and overt].  The measures included energy blockades, media manipulation, bribery, and investments in European companies in order to get an economic foothold in the region.  The new administration did nothing to counter the Russian threat.  Russian economic activity [legal and illegal] has increased, democratic institutions have been diminished and some governments have openly embraced illiberalism [notably Hungary and Slovakia].  

CSIS/CSD calculated the Russian economic footprint by looking at five things; Russian corporate presence, direct investment, trade relations, and private ownership/investments.  CSIS/CSD determined that those countries with a Russian footprint of greater than 12 percent of GDP were susceptible to Russian economic influence and/or capture.  Those countries with less than 12 percent Russian presence were more susceptible to Russian political influence. The countries below the 12 percent economic threshold were Hungary and Slovakia.  They’re at greater risk of political influence, which is connected to Russia’s efforts to deepen or maintain their economic interests.  Russia’s economic footprint in Serbia is above 12 percent of GDP, but their political influence is more prominent.  Although Russia’s economic footprint in Latvia is also above 12 percent of GDP, Latvia has shown greater resistance to Russian political pressure.  The worst case is Bulgaria.  The Russians economic presence is over 22 percent of GDP and is ripe for Russian-influenced “state capture."  

Russia conceals its economic activity by using shell companies and offshore accounts.  And in using these mechanisms they are able to acquire interests in finance, media, transportation, construction, real estate and industry.  The region is heavily reliant on Russian oil and natural gas resources, so it is the energy sector through which the Russians exercises its greatest influence.  Since Russia controls the supply they can determine the prices other countries will pay for the privilege of staying warm in wintertime.  Because they are estimated to be reliant on Russia for 75 percent of their energy needs, they overpay between 10-30 percent than their Western European neighbors.  The Russians take their profits from the energy sector and reinvest them in other sectors of the economy.  This provides these companies with much-needed foreign direct investment, but it also tightens the Russian vice on the economy.  These other economic sectors contribute tax revenues to national budgets, so withholding of tax revenue is another coercive tool the Russians can use.  The Russians can tighten or loosen their economic vice in order to influence political decision making.  The Russians can also create and maintain a large network of patronage that rewards loyalty with increased financial compensation.  Russia has exported its “oligarchic capitalism” [or “autocratic kleptocracy” – pick your favorite metaphor].  Instead of exporting Communism like during the Soviet days, they’re exporting state-sponsored corruption.  

Democratic erosion in both Hungary and Slovakia have come during a time of one-party rule [Direction-Social Democracy in Slovakia, Fidesz in Hungary].  Hungarian Prime Minister Orban and his party have revised the constitution five times since 2010, and they have passed laws that allows for more central control over the judiciary, media and the central bank.  The political left in Hungary collapsed during 2004-14 because of corruption [which became public], fiscal mismanagement, and the aforementioned 2008 Great Recession.  These events allowed Fidesz, a center-right party, to gain a stranglehold on the Hungarian parliament.  The far-right, ultranationalist Jobbik party is pro-Russian, anti-NATO and anti-Semitic and has become the second-largest party in the National Assembly.  In addition to his desire to hold onto power for power’s sake, Orban also uses Jobbik as a bogeyman to justify his embrace of an illiberal “sovereign democratic” model.  Orban is a big Euroskeptic and a big defender of national sovereignty from the bureaucrats in Brussels [Brexit, anyone?].  

In Slovakia, they too have seen a steady decline in judicial independence, free speech and other civil liberties.  There are high levels of corruption in government and in business.  As far as political leadership is concerned, Slovakia is a case of “old habits dying hard.”  Three-time Prime Minister Vladimir Mečiar ruled as an autocrat.  His successor Robert Fico, like Viktor Orban in Hungary, likes Vladimir Putin’s top-down “sovereign democratic” model.  Slovakia had made good progress on economic reforms under the leadership of Mikulas Dzurinda, but many in Slovakia didn’t enjoy the benefits resulting from the reforms.  Fico has begun to reverse the reforms of the Dzurinda era.  Fico has his own far-right, nationalist and conservative opposition in the form of the Slovak National Party [SNS], which is very pro-Russian.  Fico relies on the SNS [which CSIS/CSD believes receives funding from Russia] as a coalition partner to remain in power.  Slovakia’s political environment is unstable and fragmented, leaving it vulnerable to exploitation.  

Historically, Bulgaria has been close to Russia.  As a fellow Slavic, Orthodox nation it owes its independence from the Ottoman Empire to Russia.  During the Soviet era, Todor Zhivkov tried to make Bulgaria a republic of the Soviet Union.  As in other former Soviet client states, there is corruption in government and connections with organized crime.  Russia’s state-owned Gazprom is Bulgaria’s sole provider of natural gas.  Russia’s state-owned nuclear company Rosatom dominate Bulgaria’s nuclear sector.  Russian private oil company Lukiol controls Bulgaria’s only oil refinery and over 50 percent of the wholesale fuel market.  Russian foreign direct investments in finance. Telecommunications, media and real estate are growing. On top of the Russian grip on Bulgaria’s economy, the political environment is fractured.  Only the center-right Citizens for European Development of Russia [GERB] and its coalition partner Reformist Bloc are the only political parties that resist an overt relationship with Russia.  There are several parties that openly support Russian policies.  Prime Minister Boyko Borisov [GERB] was committed to integration with the rest of Europe, but had to walk a tightrope between pursuing that policy and alienating pro-Russian coalition partners and a large portion of the Bulgarian public.  I say “had” because Bulgaria elected a pro-Russian president last month, and Borisov resigned as a result.  

Serbia and Russia have been tight for centuries.  They’re both Slavic, Orthodox Christian, and share a linguistic heritage.  Russia has long supported pan-Slavism, with Russia assuming sponsorship and protectorship of their Slavic brethren.  Russia has sought to deepen its ties with Serbia even as it pursues EU membership.  As in the other companies, Russia has a firm grip on the energy sector.  Eight percent of Serbia’s natural gas comes from [wait for it…] Russia.  Russia’s Gazprom Neft owns a 51 percent stake in Serbia’s largest oil and gas company, Naftna Industrija Srbije.  Gazprom also owns a 12.7 percent stake in Serbia’s state-owned chemical company, HIP-Petrohemija.   Lukiol now owns Serbia’s largest gasoline distributor, Beopetrol.  The Russians are also investing in improvements to Serbia’s railway system.  Russia’s state-owned banks are acquiring large chunks of the Serbian financial sector.   

Latvia is the only one of the five countries studied that were an integral part of the Soviet Union during the Cold War period.  It is also the most successful at resisting Russian political pressure.  CSIS/CSD attributes this success to two factors.  Latvia has been most successful at deepening democratic institutions and reinforcing the rule of law.  They have the Corruption Prevention and Combating Bureau [KNAB], an independent investigative body that has not been shy about making cases for prosecution.  KNAB has also led efforts to advance legislation to make the finances of political parties more transparent to the public, reduce conflicts of interest, and improve disclosure standards regarding disclosure standards about politicians’ income and lobbying activities.  Latvia also has a strong and independent judiciary which ensures the prosecution of cases brought forward by KNAB.  KNAB could recommend all the prosecutions they like, but without a strong independent judiciary willing to follow through on their work, KNAB’s work would be meaningless.  Latvia’s population makeup is also a plus.  One would think the 300,000 ethnic Russians in Latvia would be a liability. Because Latvia was occupied by the Soviets for 50 years, they are acutely aware of Russia’s compatriot policy toward ethnic Russians in the “near abroad.”  Russian actions in Ukraine have made Latvians wary of Russian hybrid warfare tactics and their attempts to interfere in the lives of ethnic Russians in Latvia.  The Latvians take the lessons being taught in Ukraine very seriously.   

Recently the Atlantic Council published a paper titled The Kremlin’s Trojan Horses:  Russian Influence in France, Germany, and the United Kingdom.  This is their effort to show that Western Europe is not immune to Russian efforts at destabilization.  In this report, they name names of the latest crop of “useful idiots” who express support for Russian policies.  Russia aims its efforts at the same kind of far-right, ultra-nationalist political parties they support in Central and Eastern Europe.  Russia cannot exert the kind of economic pressure on Western Europe like they do farther east to attain their political objectives.  They have other tools in their tool kit:  disinformation campaigns, cyber warfare, and cultivating networks of like-minded political allies.  The Russians view Western European values – democracy, freedom of expression, and transparency – as an existential threat.  

Like CSIS/CSD, the Atlantic Council establishes the 2008 Great Recession as the starting point where Russia began to step up its influence in France, Germany, and the UK.  They have been building political alliances with ideologically friendly groups and individuals, mostly with anti-EU, far-right political parties and leaders.  But they have also been friendly with center-right/center-left, and leftist parties as well.  

In France, there are three pro-Russian groups in the political landscape: the far-right, the far-left, and the Republicans.  The far-right National Front [Front National, FN] has been broadening its appeal by getting rid of the more extreme elements of their party – the anti-Semites [including party founder Jean Le Pen], overt racism, Holocaust denial, and radical Catholicism.  Now they tend toward defense of French secularism against Islam, identifying migrants as Islamist and terrorist, Euroskepticism, protectionism, and pro-Russian.  Le Pen and Vladimir Putin have several things both support:  authoritarianism, anti-American dominance, defense of Christian values, against gay marriage, anti-EU.  Marine Le Pen’s party is the only one to overtly accept Russian financial support.  The far-left [the Communists and the Left Party] are less Euroskeptical than the National Front, supports extensive government intervention in society, support a strong central government, and are also pro-Russian.  The Republicans’ pro-Russian support comes from the party’s connections to French businesses that have operations in Russia, specifically in the defense industry, the space sector, the energy sector, and banking.   Some Republicans were openly supportive of Russia’s annexation of Crimea.  Former Prime Minister Francois Fillon is the Republican nominee for the French presidential election to be held in April 2017.  He is almost as supportive of Vladimir Putin as Marine Le Pen.  He has consistently backed Putin’s actions in Syria since 2012.  He is also against economic sanctions against Russia that have been in place since Russia’s annexation of Crimea.  Both Fillon and Le Pen are likely to face each other in the French presidential election.  Somewhere Vladimir Putin is smiling.  

The German Social Democratic Party [SPD] has a long history of rapprochement with Russia, dating back Willy Brandt’s Ostpolitik from the 1960s.  Their “change through rapprochement” is their core policy.  The Social Democrats believe a “cooperative and integrative Russia policy” would lead to a peaceful and democratic Russia.   This policy blew up the SPD’s faces when Putin annexed Crimea and stirred up trouble in the Donbas region of Ukraine.  The older generation of Social Democrats [Gerhard Schröder, Helmut Schmidt] argued for compromise with Russia, but today’s generation of Social Democrats [especially current SPD-Chair and Vice Chancellor Sigmar Gabriel] favor a more pro-Russia policy that is 180 degrees from current German and EU policy.  According to the Atlantic Council, Gabriel offered to ensure approval of the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline project that would circumvent EU regulations and weaken the sanctions against Russia.  Nord Stream 2 would double Russian gas flows to Germany and maybe allow Russia to cut off gas supplies to Ukraine.  Foreign Minister Walter Steinmeier supports a gradual lifting of sanctions on Russia.  Gerhard Schröder continues to advise the SPD on Russia while he acts as chairman of the board for Nord Stream AG, the consortium for building Nord Stream 2 that is also 51 percent owned by Gazprom.  Conflict of interest, anyone?  

In addition to the Social Democrats, two opposition parties - Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) and Die Linke – also develop contacts with Russia.  Die Linke’s deputy parliamentary leader Wolfgang Gehrcke says the US played the crucial role in Ukraine’s conflict with Russia [like Putin had nothing to do with it].  Alexander Gauland [head of Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) in parliament] wants a regular exchange with Russian officials and improved relations.  AfD also wants an end to Russian sanctions. PEDIGA, the anti-Islam movement in Germany, think of Russia as an alternative to the US and EU bureaucrats in Brussels.   

The United Kingdom has their share of Useful Idiots.  Nigel Farage [UKIP], belongs to the “most openly pro-Russian party in the UK.”  He’s been very supportive of Russian policy in both Ukraine and Syria.  UKIP’s money man, Arron Banks, wants to launch a “more professional party” than UKIP, one which has an anti-EU, nationalist agenda.  Brexit was not Russia’s doing, but the Russians are happy that the EU has been somewhat weakened.  Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn is a hard-core leftist of the Tony Benn school, as is Seumas Milne.  The Russians like Labour.  Upon Corbyn’s election as Labour leader, the Russian Ambassador to the UK said he had a “democratic mandate” for “opposition to military interventions of the West, support for the UK’s nuclear disarmament, conviction that NATO has outstayed its raison d’etre with the end of the Cold War, just to name a few.”  Corbyn campaign against Brexit, but reluctantly.  But Corbyn is very unpopular through Britain.  He owes his position to those who are paid-up members of the party, not the Parliamentary party.  Most of the party’s MP and their voters aren’t interested in Corbyn’s pro-Russian stance.  The Atlantic Council opines that UKIP, rather than Labour, is more of a pro-Russian threat to the UK.  They posit that UKIP, or the post-Brexit party envisioned by Arron Banks, would attract disaffected Tories or Labourites.  The ruling Conservative party is not squeaky-clean with regards to Russia, but their influence is described by the Atlantic Council as “superficial.”  Robert Halfon, a Tory backbencher from Essex, is linked to Ukrainian oligarch Dimitri Firtash, who is a middleman for Gazprom.  John Whittingdale, Tory MP from Maldon, also has links to Firtash. 

Roll Call of Useful Idiots

France

Marine Le Pen [National Front]

Francois Fillon [former Prime Minister, Republican]

Nicolas Sarkozy [former French president, Republican]

Jean-Pierre Chevènement [Socialist]

Louis Aliot [National Front]

Pascal Terrasse [Socialist]

Germany

Gerhard Schröder [former German chancellor, Social Democrats (SPD)]

Frank-Walter Steinmeier [German Foreign Minister (SPD)]

Sigmar Gabriel [German Vice Chancellor (SPD)]

Alexander Gauland [head of Alternative für Deutschland (AfD)]

Lutz Bachmann [PEGIDA]

Wolfgang Gehrcke [Die Linke]

Markus Frohnmeier [AfD]

United Kingdom

Nigel Farage [UKIP]

Arron Banks [UKIP financier]

Jeremy Corbyn [Labour]

Seumas Milne [Labour]

Nick Griffin [BNP]

George Galloway [Grassroots Out, former Labor MP]

Robert Halfon [Conservative MP]

The Election Is Over - Now What?

The Campaign From Hell is finally over and Donald Trump won.

Now what?

One benefit of not having voted for either Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton is that I can view what has transpired with some degree of detachment.  I don’t make political observations on this blog very often, but I will here.  

WikiLeaks.  I can’t prove that Julian Assange is a Russian stooge doing Vladimir Putin’s dirty work, but he sure played the part very well.  I know Russian television was very keen to hear what he had to say.  I understand that he thinks of himself as one to expose the dirty laundry of the powerful.  I didn’t like it when he did his first “document dump” about the Bush years, and I don’t like what he did about John Podesta’s emails either [just to be consistent].  Just the appearance of some foreign entity meddling with our elections is extremely troubling.  And what is more troubling is that many Americans openly welcomed it, and even encouraged it [as Donald Trump did] because they thought it gave them some political advantage.  While I can appreciate that WikiLeaks tore away the curtain and exposed certain things to sunlight, why did it have to be them, of all people?  I found this statement from Julian Assange very interesting:  

We publish material given to us if it is of political, diplomatic, historical or ethical importance and which has not been published elsewhere. When we have material that fulfills this criteria, we publish. We had information that fit our editorial criteria which related to the Sanders and Clinton campaign (DNC Leaks) and the Clinton political campaign and Foundation (Podesta Emails). No-one disputes the public importance of these publications. It would be unconscionable for WikiLeaks to withhold such an archive from the public during an election.  

At the same time, we cannot publish what we do not have. To date, we have not received information on Donald Trump’s campaign, or Jill Stein’s campaign, or Gary Johnson’s campaign or any of the other candidates that fulfills our stated editorial criteria. As a result of publishing Clinton’s cables and indexing her emails we are seen as domain experts on Clinton archives. So it is natural that Clinton sources come to us.  

Assange asserts that he cannot publish what he does not have.  This begs the question:  from whom did WikiLeaks get their information on the Clintons, and who would benefit from these disclosures?  This brings us to Vladimir Putin.  

Vladimir Putin.  Somewhere, Vladimir Putin is smiling.  When she was Secretary of State, Hillary claimed the Russian Duma election in 2011 was rigged [hint:  she was right – it was].  By challenging the legitimization ritual that is Russian elections [which are neither free nor fair], she challenged Vladimir Putin’s own legitimacy.  Is there any wonder why people think the Russians and WikiLeaks are joined at the hip?  One can’t help but think Vlad is enjoying a bit of schadenfreude.    

Russia.  The only country that is happy about Donald Trump’s election is Russia.  That’s the same country Mitt Romney singled out as our biggest geopolitical foe. Let that sink in for a while…  

Ukraine.  Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin have said very nice things about each other.  If I was President Poroschenko, this wouldn’t give me very much comfort.  

James Comey.  The FBI Director demonstrated there are two standards for conduct with relation to classified information.  There is one standard for the well-connected, another for the rest of us.  That made people like me [who handle classified information as part of my job] furious.  We knew that we’d be making big rocks into little rocks at Leavenworth if we got caught doing what she did.  But rightly or wrongly, Comey made his call.  And that should have been the end of it.  But no, he had to say more 11 days before the election.  In July we got the perception that the FBI plays favorites with “the elite.”  Hence the charge the “system is rigged.”  Then last month Comey stepped in it again by making his re-opening of the Clinton email probe public.  With that came the perception that since Comey is a Republican, he was abusing his power as FBI Director on behalf of Donald Trump.  What a mess…Comey needs to go.  Not only has the ghost of J. Edgar Hoover been resurrected, he has brought into question the FBI’s integrity from people of all political persuasions.  Integrity is part of the FBI’s motto:  Fidelity, Bravery, Integrity.  As I was taught a long time ago, integrity comes with credibility.  Once you have lost your credibility, it is difficult to get it back.  

“Lock Her Up”?  The case of Hillary Clinton’s emails is closed and ought to remain that way.  I’ve already said my 2 cents’ worth in this space on that subject, so I won’t say anymore.  The great thing about this country is that we don’t throw our political opponents in jail.  But as of January 20, 2017, the Clintons will no longer be part of a protected class.   Maybe the IRS will suddenly become interested in how a “charitable” organization paid $3 million for Chelsea Clinton’s wedding and other various and sundry things.  Was there any “pay-to-play”?  

Stick a fork in her…she’s done.  This is the second time Hillary ran for president, and this is the second time she came up short.  The Democratic Party rewards failure, but they won’t reward failure twice.  She’s 69 years old.  If she tries for a third time, she’ll be 73, and her health probably won’t get any better.  Her time is done.  She’s had “her turn” and she blew it.  Since she won’t be occupying the Oval Office, her ability to reward friends has suddenly come to an end.   

Will the last celebrity to leave Hollywood please turn out the lights?  These people [some of whom I’ve never heard of] said they would leave the country if Donald Trump won the election:  Amy Schumer, Jon Stewart, Chelsea Handler, Neve Campbell, Barry Diller, Lena Dunham, Keegan-Michael Key, Chloé Sevigny, Al Sharpton, Natasha Lyonne, Eddie Griffin, Spike Lee, Amber Rose, Miley Cyrus, Samuel L. Jackson, Cher, George Lopez, Barbra Streisand, Raven-Symoné, Whoopi Goldberg, Bryan Cranston, Rosie O’Donnell, Ali Wentworth [George Stephanopoulos’ wife], etc. 

Can I help you pack?  Can you take the Kardashians with you?   

The Newly Unemployed.  For the first time since I was in college, these people won’t be holding public office – Harry Reid, Joe Biden, and John Kerry.  Between the three of them, they’ve been in Washington for a combined 110 years.  What will they do?  

Sheriff Joe Arpaio is gone.  And this is a good thing.  

Trump University.  Donald Trump goes on trial for fraud.  Luckily for him it’s a civil case and not a criminal one.  I predict an out-of-court settlement to make it go away.