EDITOR'S NOTE: This brilliant book is based on a point of error easily corrected: Fascism is NOT a REACTION to liberalism or communism, it actually PRE-DATES those movements. Fascism is corporatism which grew from enslaving people to work in factories during the industrial age manufacturing myriad widgets. Before the industrial age, we had slaves working for the rich in corporations just with less powerful machinery...and before that...serfs working for the monarchy on farms around their castles in Feudalism. Its all the same thing; the 25% of mankind born without any conscience--as Ponerologists conclude--abusing human society's governing systems to enslave the middle 40%--if the 35% with social responsibility and empathy don't prevent them and create a just way of life. These evil rulers of the world, today's Rockefeller and Rothschild Illuminati families, their bankers and their intelligence agencies actually reside on top of the nation-state governmental level Yeady concentrates on in his book--though he mentions the secret elites perverting this level. For a detailed understanding of the RACKET THEORY behind human behavior that the secret elites exploit:
www.combatreform.org/RACKETTHEORYv6.0.htm
********************************************************************************************************
www.spiritone.com/~gdy52150/noon.html
Introduction
www.spiritone.com/~gdy52150/intro.html
The Nazi Hydra In America is a currently an ongoing work in progress of the White Rose. The Nazi Hydra was conceived to fill a gap in the literature by providing a detailed overview of the influence of fascism within the United States. The intent and motivation for such a project was twofold: to sound an ominous warning as to the direction this country is taking at the hands of the right-wing and to provide a convenient all encompassing source on fascism in the United States for the reader. In this regards the chapters are heavily documented. When complete the book is projected to span sixteen chapters. Chapters will be made available on this web site as they are completed.
After over five years into this project I now understand why such a book was never attempted before. Such a detailed accounting of fascism with the Untied States would literally fill volumes. Since this is an overview many of the details had to be omitted. Hence, throughout the book I urge the reader to read the sources for further details.
Beginning the project, I naively thought I had a good understanding of the scope of problem and that I could complete the entire book in two years. Before a year had past I found that many of my assumptions were incorrect and the project would last much longer. In fact, nothing from the original outline remains unchanged. Even the title was changed to better describe the book. New chapters were added and old ones deleted. But then such changes are the hallmark of good research.
The real danger from fascism is that it is so insidious that it can creep into every aspect of our daily lives unnoticed, including religious groups. In fact many religious groups were founded by fascists in the 1930s and played a large role in propagating fascism throughout the country. For the reader looking for a quick definition of fascism the slippery slope to fascism begins when the government puts the interests of corporations ahead of the rights of the people and their interest. Remember only people have rights; paper institutions created by society have no rights; they only have an obligation to serve the public. When they fail at that they have lost the right to exist.
Some readers will undoubtedly find the Nazi Hydra disturbing. They shudder at reports of another Nazi war criminal being deported and the crimes against humanity that he inflicted onto others. They fear to ask the question how such a person could slip into the country or how many more are present. Others may be livid with anger as the Nazi Hydra details the associations of the Republican Party and past presidents: Nixon, Ford, Bush and Reagan with Nazi war criminals. But history cannot be rewritten and it's a story that must be told. Those that supported Hitler and the Nazis during the 1930s and 1940s are no less guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity than the Nazi war criminals and should have suffered the same fate at the end of the hangman's rope at Nuremberg.
In tracing the roots of fascism from the 1920s to the present the one aspect that I find the most amazing is how small the click of hard-core Nazis supporters is. The truth is fascism in America revolves around a handful of Wall Street firms and leading American families. One name above all others in steering the country towards full-blown fascism stands out above all others: Bush. For over seventy years and three generations the Bush family has been hard core supporters and advocates of fascism.
With the record of the current Bush regime a short excerpt from the first leaflet of the White Rose Society, a small group of students who dared to oppose Hitler and the Nazis bears repeating.
"Nothing is so unworthy of a civilized nation as allowing itself to be governed without opposition by an irresponsible clique that has yielded to base instinct. Who among us has any conception of the dimensions of shame that will befall us and our children when one day the veil has fallen from our eyes and the most horrible of crimes - crimes that infinitely out-distance every human measure - reach the light of day?"
Who will survive to bear witness this time?
Preface
www.spiritone.com/~gdy52150/preface.html
Before diving into the subject mater at hand a note is in order concerning the documentation. This writer would have preferred to use references entirely from hard copy works over web site urls. Hard copy references are permanent as opposed to the more fleeting nature of the web. In this regard this writer has tried to limit web references to those of organizations only rather than to personnel pages that may be here today and gone tomorrow.
But the web is a wonderful research tool, yes the web has a lot of junk as well but so does any library. It's up to the researcher to sort out the reliable information in both and to discard the junk. Secondly information on the web is more current than what you can find in any library. With that said the writer has made heavy use of web references. Yes, they may be fleeting in nature, and yes the information may be updated in the future but that is a hazard of any research source. With that said the web references found within this book do what any references do and that is to give credit to the original writer after all you are reading this book on line. For this reason no attempt to update the html links will be made.
This book addresses the topic of creeping fascism in America. Before proceeding we need to carefully define what is meant by creeping fascism. Fascism itself will be defined in the first chapter. Creeping fascism refers to events themselves that may not be truly fascist in nature but when viewed in the context of a greater movement they can indeed be seen as part of a fascist movement or contributed to the rise of fascism. Events of creeping fascism will all have one thing in common they will represent a lost of freedoms for the average citizen. Indeed if any single event in the U. S. short of the suspension of the constitution could be properly labeled as fascist or in any other country for that matter.
Much of what this writer labels as creeping fascism could be properly termed Neo-fascism. Another author who has struggled with what constitutes fascism and neo-fascism is Eatwell.3 The precise definition is all but impossible. Nor does this writer really like the term neo-fascist or neo-nazi. It tends to somehow lend some creditability to them. It's like putting a happy face on a Nazi; rip the mask off and you still have a stark raving lunatic. For the purpose of this book creeping fascism will be defined as any measure that lends support to the elite or takes freedoms away from the greater masses. The danger with such a definition is that's it's a little too broad if used indiscriminately as will be shown shortly but neither the less it's the best definition available to define creeping fascism, which in the remainder of the book will simply be referred to as fascism.
It is the inherent nature of fascism that a revolution is not needed for the fascist to gain power. Indeed the only shooting revolution of the three classical fascist countries was in Franco's Spain. Both the Nazis and Mussolini rose to power in what could be more properly called a noisy protest. This is what makes fascism so dangerous and insidious. It can result from a natural decay of a democratic capitalistic society. Certainly economic troubles aid the fascist, as does the lack of strong leadership, it was precisely such conditions and the resulting chaos that allowed the Nazis to seize power in Germany.
This then is the basis and justification of the term creeping fascism. It refers directly to the decay of a democratic society and the gradual erosion of liberties and freedom leading to an authoritarian state. Thus when the writer labels an event as fascism he is looking at that event in the context of a larger movement in which individual freedoms and liberties are being gradually washed away. Once again the same type of events are easy to spot looking at the history of Germany now, but without the benefit of hindsight the imagines are indeed blurry. For one America may reverse this slide into the dark side. We still have the ability to counteract those that wish to revoke our freedoms. In the final chapter the writer will present definite steps that can be taken to regain our freedoms. Failure to include such solutions is fatalistic and the outcome far too dark to contemplate without their inclusion.
In the second chapter it will be shown that how fascism is unique in not requiring a shooting revolution and can arise out of a nature degenerative process of a democratic capitalistic society. Since fascism is a top down movement all that is required is that the elite of that society begin to concentrate their power without regards to the masses. Thus all fascist need do is to corrupt the political and economic processes to begin their march to a totalitarian state. They can do so with spreading forth propaganda to discredit the government, the schools, the media, the scientists, the courts and the remainder of the very institutions that have made America great. Once they have created a critical mass of distrust in the public then they are free to begin the process of concentration of power. This is the approach that the hard right and Republican Party has followed since the election of Reagan in 1980. It is a gradual process that can easily be cloaked until it's too late. The purveyors of fascism are free to mask much of the concentration under the banner of capitalism. Such as the consolidation of the media, which is today nothing more than the mouth-piece for corporate America.
The writer is not being an alarmist when he labels an event that seems almost harmless as fascism. It's the inherent nature of creeping fascism that masks the true significance of these events until it's too late. Freedom is a precious commodity nor is there any shortage of thugs that will do anything to kill it; it requires a constant vigil. These events leading to fascism may appear to be innocuous by themselves, certainly there were many such events in Germany prior to the rise of the Nazis. Its only after we have seen the nasty outcome of Nazi Germany that we can see that these events were not innocuous that they contributed directly to the rise of the Nazis. But at the time of their occurrence the average German citizen would have dismissed them without any further thought as harmless. But that's the benefit of hindsight.
To expound further on how these events can appear harmless at the time of the event, a brief look at the reaction to the appointment of Hitler will provide the ideal example. Considering the enormity of the event with the benefit of hindsight one would except the reaction to have been a loud and bloody protest, but instead the reaction was muted indifference. In a newsreel that was widely shown in movie houses throughout Germany, Hitler's appointment as chancellor was the last of six events. It followed such newsworthy items as a report on ski jumping, a horse race and a horse show. Editor of Vorwarts, Fredric Stampfer recalled that most people had no idea what had befallen them. Foreign reactions were restrained. A Czech diplomat in Berlin saw nothing significant in the new cabinet. The British ambassador informed England that the appointment of the cabinet marked the end of the presidential governments.1 Other members of the German press reported that it was Hugenberg who was the power behind the new cabinet. Indeed some of the leaders of big business expressed more concern over Hugenberg as economic minister than of Hitler.2
To further complicate maters these events need not have been supported by the Nazis, they may have been supported by well meaning government officials or others while the Nazis were still viewed as nothing more than a noisy bunch of thugs led by a little guy with a funny mustache. One such example would be the flaw in the German constitution that made no allowances for a negative parliament. It was a defect that Hitler successfully exploited in his quest for power. Following the war the flaw was corrected and the German parliamentary system has performed admirably. Another example would be the lack of comprising among the various parties to form a parliamentary president starting around 1930. This was another large factor in the rise to power of the Nazis, there was an acute power vacuum; there was no strong leadership. The electorate was simply too fractured or polarized for a strong leader that was responsible to the people to arise. Yes, much of that polarization was the direct cause of the Nazis, but the other parties likewise contributed to it, including the centralist parties.
Another example would be the practice of big businesses forming cartels dating all the way back into the monarchy. How much these cartels contributed to the economic problems of the 1920s can only be estimated, but it certainly added to the economic woes of Germany. Further the various fractions of businesses sought out conflicting goals from the government contributing to the general government instability. The Ruhr industrial sought to promote free trade while the agribusiness's sought out higher tariffs on grain imports to protect their livelihood.
Additionally we have already hinted that some of these events even proceeded the formation of the Nazi party. Indeed the best example of this is the prevalence of anti-Semitic feelings in Germany dating all the way back to the time of Martin Luther. Hitler exploited the underlying anti-Semitism to divide the electorate in order to gain power. Is racism in America part of a fascist movement? In the book that follows it will indeed be treated and labeled simply as fascist. Again we don't have the benefit of hindsight at the moment to know. We do know from looking at the history of fascism that racism is indeed a characteristic of fascism, as is any method that can divide the electorate.
This writer feels that divisionism is another trait of fascism that is always present just as is authoritarian and extreme nationalism is. The writer acknowledges that any political party in a democracy uses some form of divisionism in order to win elections. But there is a difference here, when this writer refers to divisionism as a trait of fascism he is referring to destructive divisionism that serves only but one purpose and that is to solely further the aims of the user.
A good example of this destructive divisionism was after first being appointed chancellor Hitler immediately set about destroying any chance at forming a parliamentary majority. This will be gone into more depth in the first chapter. Likewise, the Republican led government shut down over the budget in 1997 was simply labeled a fascist move on the part of the Republicans in an analogy in the same chapter. Clearly this writer means it to be an example of creeping fascism and not out right fascism, the writer chooses not to insult his readers' intelligence by repeating the exact phrase. Throughout the remainder of this book the writer will label such events as fascism rather than creeping fascism. Likewise this writer will simply label an event as divisionism rather than destructive divisionism. One final example of divisionism that has already been mentioned is racism. Certainly it serves no constructive purpose and it certainly fractures the electorate.
This particular rise of the hard right in America is unique and poses a dangerous threat to our liberties and freedoms. Like the period between wars this rise in fascism is global in nature not confined to one country or one area of the world. The author does recognize that there have been times in the past of widespread repression such as the rise of the Klan in the 1920s, the prosecution of the Wobblies in the same time period, McCarthyism in the 1950s and even COINTELPRO in the 1960s. What then makes this time particularly dangerous and unique? The second chapter explores the 3Ms needed for a revolution to succeed. Those are the media, the military and the money. The hard right today have taken on the aspects of Social Darwinism and at no time in the past has the wealth of the country been controlled by so few. The media has consolidated until only seven companies now control the airwaves and the press. . In essence it is now a reality that big money now owns the media, the only exception to that is the net. But even here consolidation is already beginning to occur.
It should be noted that a similar consolidation of the press occurred in Germany during the late 1920s. Indeed there are many parallels and analogies between the present time and Nazi Germany. Other writers have also noted a "hauntingly similarity" to Nazi Germany.4 In this case the writer attributes the sudden shift to the right in America to five factors: conservative religious revitalization, economic contraction and restructuring, racism, social stress and backlash, and a well-funded network. In past times, not all of these root causes have occurred simultaneously. This writer concurs with such an analysis and those topics will be explored later in detail.
Indeed this shift to the hard right would not have happened without the excesses from the 1960s. The '60s was the period in which the religious right laid the ground work for their movement. The Goldwater campaign provided a pivotal role for the formation of today's hard right. Not only did it provide fertile ground for the organizers but it also lent some sort of legitimacy to their radical extremist views and served to desensitize us.
The primary focus of this book will be the times following 1980. As hinted to already in order to understand the shift and the danger it presents background material from earlier times is needed. The chapters from the first section will lay the groundwork for the background needed to fully understand the 1980s and the hard right movement. The second part will deal with the 1980s and more recent times. In any book such as this, which is primarily a survey of the subject, the various topics are numerous and a full discussion of any single topic is beyond the scope of this book. Indeed books have been written on the topics or even of subdivisions of a topic. The writer is not going to bore you with over repetitious examples and analysis. Rather the writer will present various examples that serve to make the point before moving on. The objective here is to stimulate the reader into thinking for himself not to provide exhaustive analysis and examples.
Bibliography
1. Thirty Days to Power, Henry Ashby Turner, Addison-Wesley Publishing, 1996, page 159.
2. German Big Business and the Rise of Hitler, Henry Ashby Turner, Oxford Press, 1985, page 326.
3. Fascism, Roger Eatwell, Penguin, 1996.
4. www.publiceye.org/magazine/whynow.html
www.spiritone.com/~gdy52150/chpt1.htm
Chapter 1
No other word causes so much misunderstanding, confusion, and heated debate in politics than fascism. The term has been applied to many individuals such as McCarthy, Hoover, and others. It is frequently used to describe government policies and government themselves, often incorrectly. What then is fascism exactly? Webster's Dictionary defines it as: "A government system marked by a centralized dictatorship, stringent socioeconomic controls and belligerent nationalism." But the author takes exception with that definition. At best, the definition is vague and abstract. Nor does the definition seem capable of taking into all forms of fascism.
There is a resurgent, widespread attempt by the far right to label fascism as a form of socialism. Fredrick von Hayek was the first to attempt labeling the Nazis as socialists in his book The Road to Serfdom published in 1944.70 The hard right quickly adopted it, as it allowed the hard right to escape the charges that they had much in common with the Nazis.2 Such endeavors are not only silly, but dishonest as well and represent an attempt by the far right to distance themselves for their earlier support of Hitler.
Hayek's book is based on two erroneous assumptions from the very beginning. He first assumes that fascism and communism are one and the same, as they are both totalitarian systems. This makes about as much sense as calling a maple tree a pine tree--because both are trees. His second erroneous assumption lays in his belief that only socialism or liberalism leads to totalitarian systems. In fact, all political systems can lead to totalitarian systems and all political systems are inherently unstable, as is any system created by man.
From there, Hayek takes severe liberties with history. For instance, he goes on to claim that by deliberate policy the United States allowed the growth of cartels and syndicates after 1878.71 Indeed this date and time period is significant, but not for a move towards socialism or liberalism. Rather, it's the opposite--a move towards fascism and corporate rule. Even a reader with a rudimentary knowledge of American history would recognize this time frame as the beginning of the robber baron era and laissez faire economics, precisely the type of economic policy Hayek holds in utmost esteem.
Hayek offers little proof to support his conclusions; in fact the book is devoid of any proof or even examples to support his findings. The book degenerates into an argument based upon unsubstantiated assertion. He argues against the nation-state and proposes a supernational authority or world federation made up of the financial elite. In essence, Hayek proposes a world made up of sovereign corporations accountable to no one. Not only did Hayek take severe liberties with American history, he ignored the very nature of fascism in Germany and Italy.
In various speeches made shortly after the March on Rome, Mussolini stated, "We must take from state authority those functions for which it is incompetent and which it performs badly... I believe the state should renounce its economic functions, especially those carried out through monopolies, because the state is incompetent in such matters... We must put an end to state railways, state postal service and state insurance." The state returned large monopolies to the private sector after returning them to profitability such as the Consortium of Match Manufactures, privatized the insurance system in 1923, the telephone system in 1925, and many of the public works.
In Germany the Nazis announced they would end nationalization of private industries when they seized power. In 1932, Hitler returned control of the Gelsenkirhen company to private hands and in 1936 returned the stock of "United Steel" to private hands. Throughout 1933-1936, the Nazi returned to private hands the control of several banks: Dresdner, Danat, Commerz and Privatbank, the Deutsche Bank, and several others. In 1936, the steamship company Deutcher Schiff and Maschinenbau was returned to the private sector. In 1934, Dr. Schacht, the Nazi Minister of Economy, gave instructions to hasten the privatization of municipal enterprises. These enterprises were especially coveted by the rich industrialists, as they had been prosperous even during the depression.
Both in fascist Italy and Nazi Germany, the tax system was changed to one favoring business and the wealthy. The Nazis allowed industries to deduct from their taxable income all sums used to purchase new equipment. Rich families employing a maid were allowed to count the maid as a dependent child and reap the tax benefit. In Italy, the Minister of Finance stated: "We have broken with the practice of persecuting capital."73
Such programs, catering to big business and the rich elite, are more akin to the policies of the Reagan Administration--than it is to any liberal administration including FDR's. Likewise, it was the rich industrialists that were behind the fascist movement in the United States during the 1930s. Thus, it is no surprise that the right-wing attempts to try and label fascism as "socialism"--in trying to distance themselves from their previous support of fascism.
Perhaps the only redeeming feature in Hayek's book is his acknowledgement of environmental problems.72 Indeed, this is significant, considering the book was first published in the 1940s, long before the birth of the environmental movement. Hayek readily acknowledges the problem of industrial pollution and the harmful effects of deforestation, yet he stops short of any meaningful solution. Instead of offering a viable solution, Hayek condemns government regulation and would allow market forces to somehow provide the solution. However, it was these same market forces that produced the problem. We have plenty of proof of such a fool-hearty approach both here and globally. As late as the 1970s, rivers caught fire in the United States, cities were smog stricken and harmful pollutants were damaging the environment world-wide. Today, we face the problems of global warming and ozone depletion, and the problem of environmental estrogens, which has the potential of being even more threatening than both global warming and ozone depletion.
But perhaps the most damning of all evidence that Hayek was dead wrong comes from the implementation of an economic system based on his beliefs. Hayek later taught at the University of Chicago, the same university that trained the "Boys from Chicago" who were the economic brains behind the fascist regime of Pinochet in Chile. There is no question in the matter that under Pinochet, Chile was indeed fascist. More alarming, Hayek is an idol to several top-level officials in the George W. Bush administration. They are dangerous close to imposing a fascist-style economy on the United States.
In order to dispel the myth of the Nazis being "socialists" we need to first define socialism. Socialism is rigidly defined as an economic system in which the workers own the means of production and distribution of goods. A more relaxed definition would be simply that the workers maintain political control over the production and distribution of goods. Even using the more relaxed definition of socialism, the Nazis can not be labeled as socialists as there simply was no worker control over the production or distribution of goods in Nazi Germany. In fact, the Nazis outlawed legitimate labor unions. In place of the original unions, the Nazis implemented quasi-like unions that were controlled by the industrialists. In a déjà vu manner, the Republican Party has recently tried to enact a similar measure, conferring legal status on worker groups controlled by corporations. Some writers and historians have argued that you cannot have fascism without corporatism, as the corporate power structure has much in common with fascism. During the period preceding the outbreak of WWII it was common to refer to fascism as corporatism in polite English society.
More recently others have tried to define fascism as the "Third Way", in the sense that it borrowed ideas from both capitalism and socialism. The basic philosophy behind the "Third Way" incorrectly labels any regulations or government controls over businesses as "socialism"; essentially it's just a restatement of syndicalism. Such nonsense should be rejected whole heartily. It again represents an attempt to distance the right from their support of Hitler in the 1930s and ignores that the basis of the German economy under Hitler was a capitalist system where the means of production remained in private hands. Further, following the logic of the "Third Way," one would have to label all capitalistic systems as "Third Way," for throughout history there has never been a pure capitalistic system. A pure capitalist economy is so inherently and fatally flawed that it's never even been tried. But that is to be expected for any system that awards the winner with all the eggs. Nor has there been a pure socialistic system. Human greed simply prevents it.
The dangers of such nonsense can be illustrated with the following quote taken from a Baptists fundamentalist's web page in their labeling of the Japanese economy as fascist: However, Fascism is an economic term, denoting the type of economy where the Means of Production [factories, companies] and the ownership of raw materials [mines, oil wells] remains in the hands of private individuals, but where the government intervenes to determine how many competitors will be allowed to produce the same thing, how much is produced, and what prices may be charged.1
Here it can be seen that the term fascism has been clearly misapplied. This description could pass for the economic theory of the fascist philosopher George Sorel. This is a description of syndicalism; it was the economic model of fascist Italy and Nazi Germany to a large extent. Syndicalism does draw some aspects from socialism, but the system is still a capitalistic system as ownership of the means of production and distribution of goods remain in private hands. It is no more socialism than the conclusion of the Robber Barons and the corrupt politicians of Tammany Hall. The only difference between this example of syndicalism is that the government participation is open--versus the backroom corruption of politicians in Tammany Hall.
Not only did Japan invoke syndicalism, but almost all the Pacific Rim nations do, to some extent. These are the same nations that the hard-right has held up in the past as darlings of "capitalism and free enterprise". Yet these are precisely the same economic policies of the Nazis that they have tried to foist off as socialism. The key distinction here is the means of production still remains in private hands, just as it did in Nazi Germany. No capitalistic society has ever existed without some form of syndicalism or government control over the economy. The closest America came to an entirely capitalistic system was either the 1890s and the Robber Barons or the laissez faire policies of Herbert Hoover, and as we all know, that didn't end too well in the Great Depression of the 1930s.
No where does the quote above refer to totalitarian control or extreme nationalism. In fact, they have tried to define fascism in strictly economic terms for their own purposes. But it does serve to point out the dangers of inventing the "Third Way" or the use of syndicalism in an attempt to label the Nazis. The problem here is determining where syndicalism ends and capitalism begins. Is the trading of pollution credits a form of syndicalism or is it free enterprise? In America today, the hard-right would attempt to label it as "socialism", as they try to do with any laws or regulations of business. In fact, the past laws regulating corporations were much more severe and restrictive in the 1800s than today. One could argue that it was through syndicalism that the power elite and corporations gradually eroded those laws until corporations now enjoy more freedoms than what an individual enjoys. This is precisely what has happened in America.
But environmental and labor laws are not socialism. They are in fact nothing more than an attempt to bring an out-of-control system hell-bent on exploitation of the environment and labor back to order. No labor law or environment law was ever passed in a vacuum. All of these laws were brought about by a need to correct an unhealthy or unsafe situation. While there are some corporations that strive to provide a clean and safe workplace, there are many whose only concern is the bottom line and they turn a blind eye towards safety and view their employees as expendable commodities.
Regulation of businesses or corporations by itself is not socialism. A business entity such as a corporation has no rights other than what privileges a society wishes to grant it. People have rights; a paper creation of a society such as a corporation has no inherent rights. Business entities such as corporations only have conditional privileges based upon providing for the common good of the society, which granted the charter. All such paper creations have an obligation to serve the society, which created it. Failing to perform that obligation, it loses any right for its continuing existence. Its the obligation of that society to restrict the rights of such entities to promote equality for all--and to prevent a ruling aristocracy from developing. This view is hardly socialism or even radical, unless one wishes to label Thomas Jefferson as a radical socialist as he more eloquently stated it:
"I hope we shall take warning from the example of England and crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations which dare already to challenge our Government to trial, and bid defiance to the laws of our country."3
Perhaps one of the better definitions of fascism comes from Heywood Broun, a noted American columnist in the 1930s:
"Fascism, is a dictatorship from the extreme right or to put it a little more closely into our local idiom, a government which is run by a small group of large industrialists and financial lords...I think it is not unfair to say that any businessman in America, or public leader, who goes out to break unions is laying the foundations for fascism"75
http://www.spiritone.com/~gdy52150/chpt1.htm
A definitive definition of fascism is a totalitarian government with extreme nationalist tendencies in which the government is controlled and operated for the benefit of a few elite. However, it should be noted that an all-encompassing definition of a complex system cannot be simply stated. Such simple definitions undoubtedly fail in time. A caveat to the above definition would be anytime the government places the rights of corporations or the elite above the rights of the citizens, it represents a step towards fascism. A better insight into what fascism is can be obtained by listing the traits that are common to the classical fascist states of Franco's Spain, Nazi Germany and fascist Italy. A list of traits of fascism is presented below. Note that the first two are the two most defining traits, obviously many of the others can be applied to many other social-political systems as one moves down the list.
1. Totalitarian
2. Extreme nationalism
3. Top-down revolution or movement
4. Destructive divisionism such as racism and class warfare
5. Extreme anti-communism, anti socialism, and anti-liberal views
6. Extreme exploitation
7. Opportunistic ideology lacking in consistency as a means to grab power
8. Unbridled Corporatism
9. Reactionary
10. The use of violence and terror to attain and maintain power
11. Cult-like figurehead
12. The expounding of mysticism or religious beliefs
Not all fascists need exhibit all of the traits; once again it should be emphasized that all fascist states will exhibit a totalitarian view. Most fascist states will have an extreme nationalism policy. However, extreme nationalism is not mandatory. States such as Spain under Franco and Chile under Pinochet were indeed fascist states, but they could hardly be described as having a policy of extreme nationalism.
A brief look at the above traits and how they relate to fascism will convey a better understanding of what fascism really is, using Nazi Germany as an example. First, because it was undisputedly fascist and secondly because there is more literature available on the Nazis than on either fascist Italy or Franco's Spain. Moreover, the use of the Nazi's as an example is closer to the focus of this book, which is creeping fascism in America.
Creeping fascism is the gradual lost of freedoms of the masses to the power elite. Full-blown fascism has never appeared all at once. The Nazis took several years to reach the final state of full-blown fascism. It took the Nazis five years before Kristallnacht, which marks the beginning of the "Final Solution." The Nazis gradually took away the freedoms of the citizens of Germany until they were able to launch the Holocaust. This was the reason for including the caveat in the definition of fascism above, "Any action taken by the government that places the rights of the elites and corporations above the citizens is a step towards fascism."
Such actions will not look like fascism--some may even appear to be reasonable. Its only when the summation of many such actions ends in a fascist state that such actions can be seen as a step towards fascism.
Make no mistake in understanding that the power elite, those that own and run America's corporations, are fascist. They have forced war on this country to protect their assets, they have over-exploited their employees, they have used violence to bust unions, and they rely on divisionist policies such as racism and class warfare to maintain their power. [EDITOR: Like the "Tea Party" whining about lazy people getting welfare and health care benefits"--to keep us divided and unable to challenge THEM]
The erosion of our freedoms in the United States was prolonged by our constitution. Nevertheless, over time the lost of freedoms has left America at the edge of a chasm. Any further loss of freedoms and America will begin an irreversible slide into the deep abyss of fascism.
Before looking at the traits of fascism, a brief review of the history of fascism and its roots in modern philosophy is needed. By looking at the roots of fascism in philosophy, we can gain an understanding why fascism is often described as reactionary. By looking at the various philosophers that have come to be associated with fascism, we will be able to see that many of these traits come directly from fascism's roots in philosophy. In that way, we can then see how some of these traits that can be applied to other social-political system are central to fascism.
Many writers have assumed that fascism has no intellectual or philosophical roots due to its lack of a consistent ideology. But such views are incorrect; the roots of fascism extend back to the French Revolution. The French Revolution is one of those landmark events in the history of Europe marking the beginning of a major shift in European culture and governments. In essence, fascism was a reaction to the French revolution. It was a reaction particularly to the slogan of the revolution of "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity" that was hated the most.
The concept of liberty from oppressive regimes in the daily lives of the citizens, including forced religious values, and the concept of voting and majority rule where the minority still retained a set of inalienable rights, incensed the early philosophers of fascism. Such a concept was a direct threat to the kings and nobles of the time, as well as to the church. Remember this was a time for debtor's prisons, indentured servants, and vassal states. [EDITOR: fascists are uber SNOBS]
Equality, in the eyes of the law, was unspeakable. How could a mere peasant have the same rights under the law as the kings, nobles, and merchants? This was the time when the king's word was the law. Rights were based on the social standing of one's birth. The only rights a person had at the time were the rights that the king was willing to extend--and they could be withdrawn at any moment.
Fraternity, in the sense that all men and women shared humanity was considered heresy. It was a time when slaves were still considered and treated as animals and women were considered property, and not part of a greater humanity that needed to be shared.
All three terms meant a loss in power and control by those in power. But, this is exactly what the philosophers that have come to be associated with fascism were reacting to and rejecting. The period following the French Revolution produced a virtual intellectual stew of various philosophies, including those of Marx and Engels. A brief look at some of the major philosophers of fascism will show how they relate to the traits listed early, and how they were a reaction to the French Revolution. This list of philosophers is by no means complete, but it will suffice to show that many of the traits attributed to fascism above have roots going back as far as the French Revolution.
Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) was a German philosopher perhaps best known for his The World as Will and Representation.4 His beliefs held that the will is the underlying and ultimate reality. The whole phenomenal world was only the expression of will. Individuals have free will only in the sense that everyone is an expression of a will. Thus, we are not authors of our own destiny, character, or behavior, according to Schopenhauer. His views parallel the development of relativistic physics that came a century later. His views were influential on Nietzche, among others.
Herr Hegel
Georg Hegel (1770-1831), a German philosopher held pantheism as the heart of his beliefs. The Phenomenology of Spirit and Science of Logic are two of his better-known works. He viewed that all existence and all history was divine and that nature was sacred. He viewed God as an absolute spirit that also manifested itself in material things and individuals. He believed God acted through humans and embodied himself first in nature, then in the rising stages of human consciousness and civilization. He also had an ethnocentric and egocentric view. He maintained that the German nation was the highest carrier of the wave of God's development. He believed that the bureaucratic monarchy of Prussia was the highest form of state. These later views were certainly manifested in the Nazi's view of the Aryan race, as shown in the following quote.
"Thus, the highest purpose of the folkish state is concern for the preservation of those original racial elements which bestow culture and create the beauty and dignity of a higher mankind. We, as Aryans, can conceive of the state only as the living organism of a nationality which not only assures the preservation of this nationality, but by the development of its spiritual and ideal abilities leads it to the highest freedoms."8
Mr. Overman
Fredrich Nietzche (1844-1900), also a German philosopher was best known for his work Thus Spake Zarathustra.5 Hitler liked to be photographed staring at a bust of Nietzche. Nietzche theorized two sets of morals, one for the ruling class and another for the slave class. Nietzche viewed that ancient empires grew out of the ruling class and that religions arose out of the slave classes, (which denigrates the rich, the powerful, rationalism, and sexuality.) He developed a concept of an "overman," a superhuman, which symbolized man at his most creative and highest intellectual development. Obviously, the "overman" was manifested in the Nazi's view of the Aryan race. He suffered a mental break-down, most likely from the advances of syphilis, and was cared for by his mother and later his sister, Elisabeth. His sister painstakingly gathered his notes to publish his latter works. However, she was active in the rising anti-Semitic movement at the time and may have tainted his later work with her views. From time-to-time, Nietzsche enjoys a rebirth of popularity. Today is one such rebirth, fitting in well with the unmitigated greed and corporatism of today's hard-right. Nietzsche's connection to the Nazis is obvious, as shown by the following quotation.
"with satanic joy in his face, the black-haired Jewish youth lurks in wait for the unsuspecting girl whom he defiles with his blood, thus stealing her from her people. With every means he tries to destroy the racial foundations of the people he has set out to subjugate. Just as he himself systematically ruins women and girls, he does not shrink back from pulling down the blood barriers for others, even on a large-scale. It was and it is Jews who bring Negroes into the Rhineland, always with the same secret thought and clear aim of ruining the hated white race by necessarily resulting bastardization, throwing it down from its culture and political height, and himself rising to be master."9
Notice the similarity in this passage and the Council of Conservative Citizens that Senator Lott and representative Barr supported before becoming embroiled in the resulting scandal in late 1998.10 The web site for this white supremacist group described interracial marriage to the mixing of chocolate milk with plain milk, and labeled it as a path to racial extinction. They also described [President Abraham] Lincoln as a communist.11
Bergson Later on Rejected Nazi Fascism and Embraced Catholicism
Henri Bergson (1859-1941) was a French philosopher with a Jewish father and an English mother. He was the winner of the Nobel Prize for literature in 1927. He rejected the idea that scientific principles could explain all existence. He was a promoter of what has become known as Social Darwinism.6 Perhaps one of his better known works was Time and Free Will. He was also a believer in pantheism. Once again, we see the obvious connection with the Nazis of a master race in the following quote concerning the Nazi's euthanasia program:
"...a secret circular went out from the Reich interior Ministry which marked the beginning of a programme of euthanasia for mentally ill or deformed children up to three years old. Doctors would be required to report all such cases to the health authority on special forms; the forms would then be forwarded to a panel of three medical assessors who would adjudicate over life or death by appending "-" or "+." Should all three place a "+", a euthanasia warrant would be issued, signed by the Reichsleiter Philipp Bouhler of the Fuhrer's Chancellery or SS Oberfuhrer Dr Viktor Brack, head of the Chancellery's Euthanasia Department II. And so it happened: infants marked for death were transferred to what were referred to as Children's Special Departments in political reliable clinics, there to be given a 'mercy death' by injection or in one institution at Eglfing-Haar simply starved by a progressive reduction of diet
."7
Sorel
George Sorel (1847-1922) was a French philosopher who had considerable influence on Mussolini. His writings promoted an economic model based on syndicalism. He also believed in the degeneration of societies and believed that social decay could only be delayed by idealists who were willing to use violence to obtain power. His views were extremely anti-democratic and anti-liberal.
With this very brief review of philosophy has shown that the fascist traits of nationalism, totalitarian, racist, violence, unbridled corporatism, reactionary, and the top-down nature of fascism all are grounded in the works of past philosophers.
A totalitarian government is one that seeks to maintain control over all aspects of public and private life by using propaganda, terror, and technology. Totalitarian regimes seek control over political, social, and the culture. However, economic control is left in the hands of a few elites in the fascist state. While the means of economic control is left in the private hands of a few elites, this same group controls the government. In essence, the government becomes the tool by which the rich and the corporations maintain control. The distinction is important to note as it separates communism from fascism. In a communist state, the control over the economy moves to the inside of government, while in the fascist state it remains in private hands. Dictatorships differ in seeking only limited control over the political environment of a society.
There was only limited government ownership under the Nazis. Prior to the Nazi take over, the German governments took over failing businesses and continued to operate them. When the Nazis took over the government already owned a large number of enterprises. When the Nazis took over they began to privatize many of these businesses, especially the ones that had remained profitable during the depression like the electric utilities.
Once Hitler assured big business that they would be free to continue to operate, they failed to raise any further objections to the Nazis. The large German steel and coal industries especially welcomed the Nazis. Hitler's plans for rearmament meant large contracts for new ships, tanks, etc. Later during the war when a labor shortage appeared, it was Krupp from the German steel industry that first raised the question of using slave labor from the concentration camps. At first the Nazis were reluctant to allow the inmates to be used as slaves as it would slow the progress of the "final solution." However, once Krupp offered to pay for the slaves, the Nazis readily agreed and soon there was no shortage of companies seeking slaves.
http://www.spiritone.com/~gdy52150/chpt1.htm
Evil Personified
What is less understood about the totalitarian power Hitler achieved was the path he took to obtain that power. There never has been totalitarian regime that gained instant total control. Such a sudden change would spawn sudden revolutions. Mussolini took three years before consolidating his power in Italy. In case of the Nazis, it took even longer. Nor did the path to totalitarian Nazi state start with the elevation of Hitler to the position of chancellor. Some historians trace the roots of the path all the way back into the 1800s. A complete analysis of German history from the time of the monarchy to the seating of Hitler is beyond the scope of this book, if not beyond the scope of any single book, as volumes could be written. What follows is a very brief look at the slow erosion of freedom and the concentration of power as it relates to the final totalitarian state.
For the most part, the period following WWI was a period dominated by raucous politics and a series of crisis in Germany. The two periods in which the Nazis gained the most strength was the early 1920s, during the hyper inflationary period, culminating with the Beer Hall Putsch and the depression of 1929-1931. There is little need to examine the raucous politics of that period, everyone is well aware of Hitler's SA thugs breaking up political rallies of other parties which also resorted to the same tactics. It would not be untrue to describe many political rallies of the time as ending in brawls.
Hitler and the Nazis were extremists, and mostly rejected by the German voters during the good economic times of the 1920s. For example, in 1928 they only polled 2.6 percent of the vote, gaining just 14 seats out of the 491 seats in the Reichstag by virtue of the republic's proportional representation. By 1930 and the start of the depression, the Nazis had increased their seats to 107 out of 577 seats in the Reichstag. In the July 1932 election, at the height of the depression, the Nazis polled 37.4 percent of the vote winning 230 seats in the Reichstag, becoming Germany's largest party.13 In the November 1932 election, they only won 196 seats as an anemic economic recovery was already underway, the people began rejecting the Nazis and their radical views and actions.
Germany's plunge into a totalitarian state began before the Nazis took over. It was as much a result of a lack of a strong leadership as anything else. For the first eleven years of the German Republic, there had been seventeen cabinets headed by nine different chancellors.12 Undoubtedly, the country faced grave crisis in this period such as hyperinflation, but the lack of strong leadership and an increased polarization was readily apparent. The Nazis were the most notorious radicals unwilling to compromise, but the other parties have to share some of the blame for this polarization as well. The blame can be extended beyond the parties to the vested interests behind each party, including that of big businesses. Fracturing the electorate by polarization was playing right into the divisionist character of the Nazis, whose radical program lacked a broad base of support as the election results from 1928 showed.
The policies of the German governments during the 1920s inadvertently aided the rise of the Nazis. Throughout the 1920s the government arrested many of the leaders from the left. It would not be unfair to term these arrests as purges. The arrest of any strong leaders emerging from the left only served to further polarize the country by creating a vacuum on the left that was only filled with the more radical communists. A similar situation is emerging in the United States, throughout this century the United States has conducted purges of the left: the Great Red Scare of 1919, McCarthyism of the 1950s, and COINTELPRO operations during the sixties. Without the voices from the left to moderate policy, the political center in the United States has shifted to the hard right.
The immediate result in the lack of strong leadership is frequent chances in government, which only lead to more instability and chaos. An ideal parallel is the long string one-term Presidents ending with Lincoln and the Civil War. The polarization of the Unite States gradually increased from about 1820 on resulting in one-term presidents. Another string of one-term Presidents ended with the election of Roosevelt in the middle of the Great Depression. In both U.S. cases, the ending result was not pleasant: a civil war and a depression.
Such frequent change in government does not allow businesses to make long-range plans, nor does it allow for enough to time for programs enacted by a government to work. These effects then act as negative feedback, further increasing the polarization and the resulting chaos.
Additionally, the German constitution was flawed and did not account for a negative parliament. Power in Germany was concentrated in the office of the president, headed by Hindenburg, who initially had been elected by conservatives and reactionary rightists. He was a member of the aristocratics from the Junker class and had been a war hero; he likewise held sentiments for the monarchy. The president had the power to appoint cabinets and chancellors. Beginning in 1930, Hindenburg began the practice of appointing chancellors of his choice that were not beholding to the parliament. To allow the chancellors to circumvent parliament, he granted these chancellors emergency powers that had been given to the president by the constitution. Starting in 1930, almost all national laws, including the power to tax, were enacted by presidential decrees--and not by the parliament. Such presidential decrees would be similar to the executive orders in the United States.
Hence, even before Hitler was appointed to the chancellor position, power was being concentrated into the two offices of the chancellor and the president. At least twice before appointing Hitler as chancellor, Hindenburg entertained ideas of violating the constitution by not holding elections within the sixty days as required by the constitution.
Hindenburg had also avoided appointing Hitler as chancellor twice before January 1933. Even with the support of big business, Hindenburg failed to appoint Hitler when the Nazis held more seats in the Reichstag than any other party.
It wasn't until after Hitler met in secret with von Pappen at the Cologne home of Baron Kurt von Schroder that Hindenburg would relent and appoint Hitler chancellor. The baron was the head of the international Schroder banking empire and had previously raised funds to pay off the Nazi's debt.
The secret meeting on January 4, 1933 allowed Hitler and von Pappen to work out their differences and to agree to a new cabinet under the direction of both. This secret meeting was the birthplace of the Third Reich.
However, there were two Americans that also were in attendance: John Foster Dulles and his brother Allen. The Dulles brothers were there as legal representatives for Kuhn Loeb Company, which had extended large short-term credits to Germany. Their presence was to secure a guarantee of repayment from Hitler.
Moreover, Kurt von Schroder had extensive financial contacts in New York and London. He was a co-director of Thyssen foundry along with Johann Groeninger, Prescott Bush's New York bank partner. Schroeder was also the vice president and director of the Hamburg-Amerika Line, the same shipping line seized from Prescott Bush for trading with the enemy.
Throughout 1932, actions taken by the Bush-Harriman shipping line were directly responsible for bringing Hitler to power. The constitutional government tried to disarm the Nazi Brown Shirts to stop the mad election melees and murders. The U.S. embassy in Berlin reported:
" Hamburg-Amerika Line was purchasing and distributing propaganda attacks against the German government, for attempting this last-minute crackdown on Hitler's forces."
During 1932, Hitler's thugs murdered thousands of Germans. Arms for Hitler were shipped to Germany aboard the Hamburg-Amerika Line. They were transferred to river barges before reaching Antwerp and then transported across Holland freely. Samuel Pryor, founder of Union Bank and a partner in the Hamburg-America Line was also executive committee chairman of Remington Arms. Hitler's Brown Shirts were armed primarily with Remington arms and Thompson submachine guns. A Senate investigation of Remington concluded that all of the political factions in Germany were armed with mostly American-made guns.
Once Hitler and von Pappen had reached an agreement on their future course of actions, Pappen pressured Hindenburg to appoint Hitler as chancellor. The success of the meeting was recorded in Goebbels. On January 5, 1933 Goebbels wrote in his diary "If this coup succeeds, we are not far from power. . . . Our finances have suddenly improved."
Hindenburg appointed Hitler, as chancellor with the understanding Hitler would be a parliamentary--rather than a presidential chancellor. Hitler immediately set about sabotaging the efforts to from a parliamentary majority. Here is one of the first examples of fascism and divisionism.
On February 1, 1933 the German parliament was dissolved and new elections were scheduled for early March. Using his henchmen, Hitler had the Reichstag building burnt. The fire was blamed on the communists, his main rivals. Using the fire as an excuse, Hitler banned the communists from the upcoming election. Additionally, Goering deputized his stormtroopers to harass any political opposition from his position in the cabinet; but even then, the Nazis could not achieve a majority in parliament as they polled only 43.9 votes.14 By summer, all political parties except the Nazis had been dissolved. On the death of Hindenburg in 1934, Hitler assumed the office of president and further consolidated his grip on power, but it would take a couple of additional years before Hitler was a true totalitarian. He purged the justice system of judges with adverse views, appointing rabid Nazis in their place, and the stormtroopers were given police powers. Justice was now the Nazi party line.
One does not need to expound upon the extreme nationalism of the fascist. The history of their invasion in a quest for world dominion is well known. Mussolini turned his attention to Ethiopia and North Africa; Hitler first to Austria, then Czechoslovakia, followed by Western Europe and later to Norway and the east.
Hitler had left a blueprint for his extreme nationalism and the quest for lebensraum in Mien Kampf as shown by the quote below.
"If the National Socialist movement really wants to be consecrated by history with a great mission for our nation, it must be permeated by knowledge and filled with pain at our true situation in this world; boldly and conscious of its goal, it must take up the struggle against the aimlessness and incompetence which have hitherto guided our German nation in the line of foreign affairs. Then without consideration of traditions and prejudices it must find the courage to gather our people and their strength for an advance along the road that will lead this people from its present restricted living space to new land and soil; and hence also free it from danger of vanishing from the earth or of serving others as a slave nation.
The Nationalist Socialist movement must strive to eliminate the disproportion between our population and our area-viewing this later as a source of food as well as a basis for power politics---between our historical past and the helplessness of our present impotence."15
The third trait of fascism is that it consists of a top-down revolution or movement. It is becoming more accepted today that the Nazis drew support from all classes. Indeed, this seems a reasonable assumption when looking at all of the evidence. The stormtroopers for the most part drew their numbers from the lower and middle classes. They were typically were unemployed laborers, inept middle management, or failed businessmen. Likewise, given the vote tally of over 30% in the 1932 elections, the Nazis had to have drawn votes from all social classes. But this has no bearing on who controlled the direction of the party. Control of the party rested solely with Hitler--and whom he allied with. He chose to ally with the upper class and big business as borne out by his policies after gaining power. There is little controversy over the considerable support Hitler drew from the aristocrats, the military, or the Junkers.
Telltale signs forewarning of the elite control was evident from the very formation of the party until the final days before gaining power. A brief look at those that financed the Nazis rise to power will reveal the real support behind Hitler. This is becoming an increasing issue of contention as the American hard right tries to distance themselves from the similarities of their policies with fascism.
Hitler himself did not form the Nazi party initially. He joined an existing party and then molded it according to his wishes. In fact, his [Army Secret Service] company commander had ordered him to attend a meeting of what was the German Workers Party. Here was Hitler's initial reaction to the party.
"My impression was neither good or bad; a new organization like so many others. This was the time in which anyone who was not satisfied with developments and no longer had confidence in the existing parties felt called upon to found a new party. Everywhere these organizations sprang from the ground, only to vanish silently after a time. The founders for the most part had no idea what it means to make a party---let alone a movement---out of a club. And so these organizations nearly always stifle automatically in their absurd phillistinism."16
The order from his company commander provides the first evidence that the elite backed Hitler from the very beginning. At any point from this date the German military could have withdrawn its support of Hitler and disbanded the Nazi party
Hitler was a good orator by all reports, as well as an astute political observer. He knew how to motivate the masses in his name and how to sustain a movement. Someone once remarked recently that you needed only gain control of the 3Ms to gain power. The three "Ms" are the military, media, and money. Hitler had all three behind him. As shown by the passage from Mein Kampf, Hitler started with the blessing of the military. The military, as well as big business, played a behind the scenes role in the appointment of Hitler as chancellor. It's the last of the 3Ms where much confusion and debate arise, Hitler's source of funds or money.
Big business likewise had a large hand in bringing down Bruning in 1930. In a large part, it was the constant bickering by special interest groups that led to the falling of Bruning's cabinet. Big business was urging the following demands on the Bruning government:
1. The government must take steps to lower the cost of production and widen the profit margin.
2. Lower taxes
3. Reduce the size of government.
4. Lower unemployment insurance benefit
5. The government must allow wages to progress to lower levels, by voiding labor contracts and binding arbitration.26
If these demands from the business community seem familiar to the reader, it's because in a large part they are the same policies that the Republican Party has been advocating for the last twenty years.
Throughout the 1920s and up until Hitler was appointed chancellor, the Nazi party was plagued with a shortage of money. After release for prison for the failed Beer Hall Putsch, Hitler's only known source of income was from the sale of Mein Kampf and fees for newspaper articles he would write. The first edition of Mein Kampf was published July 18, 1925 in an edition of 10,000 copies selling for 12 marks. By the end of the year, almost all copies had been sold. A new edition was printed, but sales in the following year plummeted.
Nevertheless, almost immediately after being pardoned, he bought a new super-charged Mercedes-Benz for 28,000 marks.17 Additionally, Hitler did not drive, so he had the additional expense of a chauffeur. Likewise, from 1925 until his appointment as chancellor in 1933, Hitler lived in increasing comforts, if not outright lavishness for the times. Certainly, the royalties from Mein Kampf and fees for his other writings were insufficient to cover even his living expenses--not to mention the party's expenses.
Also, the funding for an ever-increasing number of SA troopers (many of which were unemployed) had to be secured. Turner has suggested that the Nazis were self-sufficient from dues, speaker's fees, and donations at rallies. However, this seems almost improbable looking at the numbers from 1930. In 1930 there were about 100,000 stormtroopers that had to be fed, housed and otherwise supported. Additionally there were 15,000 in the SS. Nazi membership at the beginning of 1931 was only 389,000.18 Thus it seems very reasonable, that outside sources of funding was needed to maintain the SA and SS, as well as the ever increasing lifestyle of Hitler. Membership fees in the Nazi party started at a mark per month, non-paying members were quickly dropped from the party.
From the very beginning of the Nazi party, Hitler showed a knack for obtaining funding from the more privileged members of German society. For instance, everyone is well aware of the trial following the Beer Hall Putsch, but less well known was a secondary trial following the putsch. In the secondary trial, several businessmen that had donated money or other support for Hitler were put on trial. Some have attributed much of this early funding of the Nazis to the secret Thule Society.19 Another early source of funds in the early '20s came from the efforts of Scheubner-Richter, who was adept at gaining funds from Bavarian aristocrats, big businessmen, bankers, and leaders of heavy industry.20 Another source of early funds came indirectly from Fritz Thyssen. Henry Ford also exerted a considerable influence over Hitler in the early 1920s, as well as money. Some passages from Ford's International Jew are nearly identical to passages in Mein Kampf. Ford's book is reported to have had a large effect on many of the school children of the time that were suffering through hyperinflation and economic hard times while reading a book written by the world's foremost capitalist.
http://www.spiritone.com/~gdy52150/chpt1.htm
Henry Ford's reward from Hitler finally came in July 1938, when on his seventy-fifth birthday he was awarded the Grand Cross of the Supreme Order of the German Eagle. Ford was the first American and the fourth person in the world to receive this medal, which was the highest decoration that could be given to any non-German citizen. Benito Mussolini, another of Hitler's financiers, had been decorated with the same honor earlier that year.
The extent of Ford's financial donations to Hitler still remains a mystery. The U. S. ambassador to Germany, William Dodd, was quoted saying "certain American industrialists had a great deal to do with bringing fascist regimes into being in both Germany and Italy."21 The extent of corporate America's collaboration with the Nazis before the war and even during the war, in some cases, is not fully known. However, as time goes by and more information becomes available, the collaboration begins to appear significant, as shown in the following article.
"Bernd Greiner said 26 of the top 100 U.S. companies in the 1930s collaborated to some degree with the Nazis before, and in some cases after, Hitler declared war on the United States in December 1941. Company headquarters in the U.S. have denied they knew what was going on in Germany, but there is evidence to suggest they knew their German subsidiaries used slave labor, tolerated it and in some cases were actively involved, Greiner said.
Greiner confirmed a report in the newspaper Die Zeit, based on his findings of U.S. corporate involvement in Nazi Germany. The findings went beyond allegations of U.S. lawyers and historians last year that automakers General Motors and Ford collaborated with the Nazi regime."22
One of the more historically accurate, but shamefully apologetic to big business sources is the book, German Big Business and the Rise of Hitler by Turner.23 Turner does a good job in detailing the extensive participation of the leaders of business with the Nazis. However, he reaches the conclusion that big business did not support Hitler with a rather contrived definition of what "big business" is. He based his definition on the value of the float of stock on the market. His definition limited the number of companies that he would classify as "big business"--to only 14 companies in the Ruhr industrial area and a smattering of companies located elsewhere. Essentially, his definition would be the equivalent of saying that only the Dow 30 companies in the U. S. could truly be called "big business". This of course is nonsense. The majority of people would certainly consider Chrysler, Texas Instruments, Hewitt Packard, John Deere and Chase Manhattan Bank to be "big business"--but according to Turner's book they are not. It is from this group of second and third-tier businesses (in keeping with Turner's definition) that provided the most help and support for Hitler. Furthermore, Turner neglects the effect of cartel agreements as well as subsidiaries in his analysis. Many of these second and third-tier corporations were owned and controlled by the 14 corporations, he considered to be "big business".
Secondly, Turner focuses much of his attention on the period of 1920-1928, when the Nazis were at best a minor noisy party. During this time, the Nazis were lucky to poll more than 3% of the vote. Yet Turner tries to use this as proof that big business did not support Hitler's rise to power, although he does admit that Fritz Thyssen and Kirdolf were supporters of the Nazis during this time. An equivalent situation would be today's Libertarian Party, a party that draws support from Koch, head of Koch refinery (a second-tier company by Turner's reasoning). But no one is rushing to fund the Libertarians today when they cannot even poll 5% of the vote.
Finally, when the source of funds were unquestionably from big business, Turner attempts to discredit them by claiming "the source of the funds was a junior level executive that couldn't be responsible for overall company policy". Or he attempts to say they were given to an individual Nazi. In one shameful passage Turner attempts to discredit the funds given to Nazi fund-raiser Walther Funk by claiming they were not a donation to the party as they may have been spent by Funk for entertainment. Turner describes a particular drunken binge across town by Funk in which he passed out some rather large tips and then draws the conclusion that perhaps none of the funds given Funk ever reached the Nazis.24 This is not the work of a historian, as Turner claims to be. This is nothing more than conjecture by a propagandist. There is also one other speculative conclusion one could draw from this passage, and that is that the amount of money Funk was receiving was so enormous that it permitted such behavior.
Turner does a good job in showing that it was those second and third-tier businesses that supported the Nazis. In Duren, a Rhenish manufacturing town, the Nazis received considerable support from local industrialists such as the millionaire dynasties (a term in use from the 1820s in describing these two families) of the Schoellers and the Schulls. Another area in which the Nazis received broad support from businesses was Solingen, an industrial town.25 Overall, Turner documents the participation of business leaders and their support for the Nazis, leaving no question in the reader's mind that business leaders exerted a considerable influence on the Nazis. Unfortunately, he ends his study just as the Nazis seize power.
Many businesses chose to align with and support the Nazis after they gained power. Krupp and I.G. Farben were both executors' of Goering's Four-Year Plan to make Germany militarily self-sufficient by 1940. One can view the details of Krupp's involvement and support for the Nazis after March 1933 in the documents from the War Crimes Tribunal at Nuremberg.31 The full set of available documents from Nuremberg is also available on the Internet.32 By 1939, I.G. Farben provided the Nazis with 90 percent of their foreign exchange, 95 percent of imports, and 85 percent of all military and commercial goods. In 1932, Hermann Schmitz Farben's joint chairman joined forces with Kurt von Schroder, director of a wealthy private bank. Schroder was a fanatical Nazi, often times dressed in his black SS uniform. Schroder is the man that is closely linked with Chase Bank, Standard Oil and William Teagle, and ITT. In 1932, Schroder and Wilhelm Keppler formed the group known as "The Fraternity." This group guaranteed a source of money to the Gestapo. Members agreed to contribute an average of one million marks a year to Himmler's personally marked "S" account and the transferable secret "R" account of the Gestapo.27
In April of 1933, Gustav Krupp sought out a private meeting with Hitler. Krupp agreed to become Hitler's chief fundraiser and chairman of the Adolf Hitler Fund. In return Hitler promised to appoint Krupp as the Fuehrer of Germany industry. Over the years, Krupp contributed over six million marks of his own money to the Nazis, and his correspondence shows that he truly enjoyed his job as chairman.28 Likewise, it is common knowledge that after Hitler was appointed chancellor, Krupp greeted people cheerfully with the Heil Hitler! salutation.
Schirer writes that in 1931, when Hitler decided to cultivate relationships between influential industrial leaders, he kept their identity a secret.
"The party still had to play both sides of the tracks. The party had to allow Strasser, Goebbels and Feder to beguile the masses with socialist talk and denigrating the industrial magnates."
Some of the meetings were so secretive that they were held in forest glades."29
Further proof of the industrialist involvement and support of the Nazis comes from the testimony of Funk at Nuremberg. The entire list implicated by Funk is far too long to reproduce here, but besides Thyssen and Krupp it included Georg von Schnitzler-I.G. Farben, August Rosterg and August Diehn of the potash industry, Cuno of the Hamburg Amerika Line, Otto Wolf, Kurt von Schroder, and many other wealthy industrialists30
On May 2, 1933, the Nazis raided and occupied all trade union headquarters. The leaders were beaten and arrested; some were placed in the concentration camps. Union funds were confiscated and the unions were dissolved. Members of the communist party and the social democrats had already been arrested. On June 20, 1934, in what has become known as the Night of Long Knifes, Hitler purged the socialists within the Nazi party, chief among them Roehm.
With the broad financial support from the leaders of the business community as well as from the military leaders and aristocrats, the Nazis were truly a top-down organization, while the Nazis used the lower class as foot-soldiers to gain power. They did so in a deceiving manner, and once in power, immediately set about betraying the lower classes
We have already shown one example of divisionism by the Nazis in their rise to power. But what sets fascist divisionism apart from the ordinary divisionism of any other political ideology? Certainly any politician in a democracy appeals to some sort of divisionism, as he is fully aware that he can not possibly appeal to the entire electorate. The difference lies in the fact that divisionism is always destructive in fascism and serves only as a means to gain and maintain power. [EDITOR: like the "Tea Party" rants] Even after gaining power, Hitler went to great pains in dividing power, playing one follower against another, creating rivalries in the party in the process. In short, Hitler kept the Nazi party divided as if it was a set of small fiefdoms. One of the biggest myths about the Nazis is that they were a single unit, when in fact they were a conglomeration of various fractured parts. Eatwell states the paradox within Hitler's power structure as: "because the party was so divided that he had power and in turn the party was divided from other key centers of power such as the army." 47 In other ideologies, the divisionism is not inherently destructive. Rather, it's based on differing approaches coming together to reach an equable solution to a problem. In his rise to power, Hitler had no intention of compromising with the other parties to form a parliamentary president. His moves were calculated to destroy any chance of that.
A couple of examples from the present can further delineate the difference between the two. Certainly many of the tax proposals coming from the Republican party today could be classed as divisionism as they favor the upper income earners over the lower income groups. While the measures are divisive they can hardly be labeled as destructive divisionism. They are more a reflection of difference in opinion.
However, an example of an act that could be termed a fascist divisionism was the Republican caused shut-down of the government in November 1995 after Clinton vetoed the budget bill. Clinton had previously warned Congress that unless changes were made in the budget he would veto the bill. Members of the hard-right Council for National Policy and many of their Republican members openly had declared they would shut down the government. In essence, the Republicans adopted the same policy that Hitler had in his bid to dismiss parliament; they refused to negotiate honorably.
Just as Hitler had taken a position to subvert democracy, so had the Republicans, led by Gingrich. The constitution defines the passing of the budget in detail. The spending bills originate in the House after passage by both the House and the Senate. It is then sent to the President, who may either veto it or sign it. If the bill is vetoed, it is up to Congress and the President to reach a compromise bill. Otherwise, Congress must pass a bill with a two-thirds majority. The failure of Congress to pass a bill to advert a government shutdown was a dereliction of their constitutional duty. Fortunately, the outrage coming from the general public forced the Republicans back to the negotiation table. The point to be made is the only difference between the two events---the Republicans feared the wrath of the people and capitulated, Hitler had no such fear and parliament was dismissed.
The Republican shut-down of the government also serves to point out a flaw in our constitution, just as there was a flaw in the German constitution. In the case of the U. S. constitution, there is no other mechanism other than shutting down the government if Congress fails to pass a budget. If the fascists in America can be successful in polarizing American politics to such an extent that the public, or at least a considerable portion of it, tolerates a government shut-down, then the entire budget process becomes a fracas. And after observing the behavior of the Republicans in their ill-fated attempt to impeach Clinton such a possibility does not appear so remote.
Another example of divisionism that is solely destructive that is not based on racism or class warfare was the impeachment of Bill Clinton. It served no purpose other than to smear the president, the articles of impeachment fell far short of what the founding fathers had defined in the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors." That phrase refers back to the misuse of offices in England under the king. Additionally, the investigation of Ken Starr has been plagued by civil rights abuse and possible criminal action by Starr himself. It resembles a coup headed by the multi-millionaire [EDITOR: AmeroNazi] Scaife with the aid of the religious right, more than it resembled a justified impeachment.
But perhaps, the greatest illustration of the divisionism was seeing support for the impeachment evaporate like rain on hot pavement in the Senate following the State of the Union address and a thorough defense of the charges by Clinton's legal team. The House prosecutors with the conclusion of Ken Starr questioned Monica Lewinsky further in secret. This single action by the House Republicans invoked criticism from even members of their own party in the Senate. It was conducted against the agreed upon rules, and it was unconstitutional in that the power of investigation is delegated to the Senate. Likewise, it is against the statute of the Independent Council. It served no purpose other than to further divide and disgust the country. In short, it is nothing but an attempt at a power play.
http://www.spiritone.com/~gdy52150/chpt1.htm
Often times, this divisionism takes the form of racism or class warfare. It is often stated that Mussolini tried to eliminate class distinctions in fascist Italy. But the reality is that he only reinforced those distinctions. Certainly the Nazis practiced racism in an outrageous manner, ending in the Holocaust. On the other hand, fascist Italy was not racist in nature until after Mussolini adopted Hitler's Jewish solution. Fascism doesn't necessary have to be racist in nature, but racism is often used to divide the citizens, as their radical platform isn't appealing to the broad masses. In addition, racism is violent in nature and the resulting chaos from the violence serves to further divide the masses. Whether or not a fascist state is racist seems to depend more upon the culture of the society in which it arises. Before fascism, Italy had a long history of generally equable racial relationships, going all the way back to the old Roman Empire. For instance, even the slaves were eventually given full rights in Rome. However, the roots of anti-Semitism goes back much further in Germany as shown in the following quote.
"This is a good month to reflect on the toxicity of words meant to kill. Nov. 9 marks the 60th anniversary of Kristallnacht, the 1938 'Night of Shattered Glass' unleashed by the Nazis to terrorize Germany's Jews. The date was chosen specially by Josef Goebbels, Hitler's propagandist, to honor the birthday of Martin Luther, the 16th century monk who was a father of the protestant Reformation and the founder of what became the Lutheran church.
Hitler greatly admired Luther: "He saw the Jew as we are only beginning to see him today." Indeed. Luther saw the Jews as 'hopeless, wicked, venomous, and devilish... our pest, torment, and misfortune."
Initially, certain that his version of Christianity would appeal to Jews, he expected large numbers of them to covert. When that failed to happen, he turned violently against them. In 1543, Luther Published "On the Jews and Their Lies," a work that would become known throughout Germany, perhaps the most widely disseminated work of anti-Semitism by a German until the rise of the Nazis 400, years later.
"What then shall we Christians do with this damned, rejected race of Jews?" Luther asked.
"First, their synagogues should be set on fire, and whatever does not burn up should be covered or spread over with dirt, so that no one may ever be able to see a cinder or stone of it...
Secondly, their homes should likewise be broken down and destroyed...
Thirdly, they should be deprived of their prayer books and Talmuds, in which such idolatry, lies, cursing, and blasphemy are taught.
Fourthly, their rabbis must be forbidden under threat of death to teach any more...
Fifthly, passports and traveling privileges should be absolutely forbidden to the Jews...
Sixthly, I advise that...all cash and treasure of silver and gold be taken from them...
Burn down their synagogues, forbid all that I enumerated earlier, force them to work, and deal harshly with them... If this does not help we must drive them out like mad dogs, so we do not become partakers of their abominable blasphemy and all their other vices. I have done my duty. Now let everyone see to his."
This is hate speech.
Sixty years ago next Monday on the night of Luther's birthday, Nazi gangs rampaged across Germany. In every Jewish neighborhood, windows were smashed and buildings were torched. All told, 101 synagogues were destroyed, and nearly 7,500 Jewish-owned businesses were demolished. On that night, 91 Jews were murdered; 26,000 were rounded up and sent to concentration camps. It was the greatest pogrom in history. And it was nothing compared with what was to come."33
The question then remains whether the fascism in America can be considered racist or not. The past history of racism in the United States would tend to support such. As a nation, we were one of the last industrial nations to allow slavery, and it took the Civil War to end slavery. It has been less than fifty years since "separate but equal" was the rule of the land. It's only been sixty years since Japanese citizens and immigrants were interred in camps following the bombing of Pearl Harbor. The Rosewood incident happened less than a hundred years ago, and lynching of blacks was common well into the 20th century. This country has had a long, incredulous history of bigotry and even genocide. There is no question of the genocide of Native Americans in the efforts of the U. S. Army in passing out blankets infected with small pox, or the slaughter of the Plains Indian's primary source of food, the buffalo. Then there was the Trail of Tears, as well. The Irish immigrants, following the potato famine, were greeted by the Know Nothings, a party that based its support on the hate of Catholics.
All of the hard-right groups are racist, although more than one tries to play their racism down or to hide it, such as the John Birch Society and some of the various militia groups. Others are openly racists, such as the Klan, the Nazis and the skinheads. The great unifier of the far right, the Identity religion, links many of the hard-right groups. The Identity religion is based on anti-Semitic belief that the true followers of Jesus immigrated to Britain and northern Europe, that today's Jews are the descendents of Satan. It's the mainstay religion among the militias, the Posse Comitatus, and even among some of the Klan groups.
Besides the normal hate groups based on racism or anti-Semitism. the religious right has emerged in the 1990s as a venomous hate group basing their hate on gays and abortion. Abortion clinics increasingly are becoming targets of bombings, arson, and vandalism. Late in 1998, Matthew Shepard was murdered in Wyoming after being tie to a fence and then pistol-whipped, for being gay. Below are some quotes about gays from one of the leaders of the religious right, Pat Robertson.
"This conduct [homosexuality] is anti-social, and it is a pathology. It is a sickness, and it needs to be treated. It doesn't need to be taught in the classroom as a preferred way of life..." - 700 Club, 3-7-90
"...the acceptance of homosexuality is the last step in the decline of Gentile civilization." --Pat Robertson, of the Christian Broadcasting Network, warned that hurricanes could hit Orlando, Fla., because of gay events there. Time magazine, Oct 26, 1998
"If the world accepts homosexuality as its norm and if it moves the entire world in that regard, the whole world is then going to be sitting like Sodom and Gomorrah before a Holy God. And when the wrath of God comes on this earth, we will all be guilty and we will all suffer for it." - 700 Club, 9-6-9534
[EDITOR: I think homosexuality should not be allowed in society categorizing it as a crime like murder is--but of course, not as severe. Society must have some standards of morality or else we just have hedonistic anarchy. Fascism and Communism are totalitarian mentalities that do not stop at criminal behaviors like murder and homosexuality, they continue to pry into individual lives without pause seeking the complete roboticization of every individual.]
Compare that last quote of Robertson's to the following quote of Hitler on syphilis.
"...they speak of this whole field as if it were a great sin, and above all express their profound indignation against every sinner caught in the act, then close their eyes in pious horror to this godless plague and pray God to let sulfur and brimstone preferably after their own death rain down on this Sodom and Gomorrah, thus once making an instructive example of this shameless humanity
."39
Such evidence, as Robertson's words, abounds that they would persecute gays, it abounds in the numerous ballot measures in various states that would deny gays their civil rights. Such a measure passed in Colorado, only to be overturned by the Supreme Court. Another measure, led by Lon Mabon in Oregon failed state-wide, but was reintroduced on local ballots in the following election. Mabon has also led ballot measures to limit the concept of a family and limiting abortions to only the first trimester. The first was another attempt to limit the rights of gays.
In June 1998, near Jasper, Texas a black man named James Byrd was dragged behind a pickup. Body parts were found over a two-mile length of the roadway.35 It is too early for trends in hate crimes to emerge, as the FBI only began tracking hate crimes in 1991. The one trend that does seem to be emerging is the hate crimes are becoming increasingly violent as evident from the murders of Shepard and Byrd. The real danger of these two murders is they serve to desensitize us, leading to more numerous and increasing levels of violence, just as the Nazis used increasing levels of violence against the Jews.
Racism is reemerging in various forms in the 1990s in political issues and in the Republican Party. "English only" laws are being promoted with increasing frequency by various Republican candidates, including Robert Dole, and have even appeared on some ballot measures such as California Prop 187. The obvious targets are immigrants from Mexico. In effect, it's nothing more than the reemergence of nativism. Other forms of nativism have appeared, such as denying immigrants access to welfare and the school system for children of immigrants. Nativism is also behind various immigration bills and the increasing efforts directed at illegals.
Perhaps the most dangerous form of racism to emerge has been the Republican efforts to "monitor" the polls. And videotape those leaving. Cases have arisen in the 1998 election in North Carolina, Georgia, Michigan, Maryland, Kentucky, Texas and Maine. The efforts are directed primarily at districts in which have a high percentage of minorities. Such efforts serve no useful purpose and do constitute a violation of the Voting Rights Act.36 More disturbing is the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, William Rehnquist, served as the director of Republican 'ballot security' in the poor areas of Phoenix, Arizona between 1958-1962.37 He likewise wrote a pro separate but equal memo as a law clerk for Justice Robert Jackson. All of which was brought out in his confirmation hearings.
An even more subtle effort on the part of Republicans in denying votes to the minorities and the poor is centered on the debate to allow a statistical correction to the 2000 census. Such effort on the part of the Republicans goes far beyond the election of 2000. The census will be used to reapportionment of the congressional districts for the decade. Thus, by denying the correction, they in effect are perpetuating their power to 2010 by undercounting groups that historically vote for Democrats
In Dec 1998, Republican House member Bob Barr and Senator Trent Lott were exposed as keynote speakers before the Council of Conservative Citizens, a racist organization. Lott was later determined to have been an honorary member and had written several articles for their paper dating back to the early 1990s. In January, Republican National Chairman, Jim Nicholson asked members to dissociate themselves from this group and directly appealed to national committee member Buddy Witherspoon from South Carolina to resign. The request was refused.38 Once before, the Republicans were asked to denounce the radical John Birch Society at their National Convention in the early 1960s. Moderate members such as the former President Jerry Ford, did so. However the measure failed.
Another Republican that deserves mention here is Pat Buchanan and his anti-Semitic views. Buchanan has opposed virtually all civil rights bills and favorable court decisions; he has supported apartheid in South Africa; he has spewed forth views of Holocaust denial; he has called fascists such as Franco and Pinochet soldier-patriots. And Buchanan was a key figure in urging Reagan to visit the SS cemetery in Bitburg.40
Thus as we prepare to enter a new century, the Republican Party has adopted racism as a divisionist tool to divide the electorate in an attempt to maintain power and enact their extremist agenda. Not all members of the Republican Party are racist, but many of the members from the hard right that controls the party are racists. There are honorable members of the party, but they are being forced into lesser and lesser roles. The extremists have gained control. It is the burden of those honorable members to take back control of their party and denounce the extremist before it becomes too late.
Perhaps the best assessment of the use of destructive divisionism by fascist in the United States comes from a 1945 War department publication:
"Three Ways to Spot U.S. Fascists.
Fascists in America may differ slightly from fascists in other countries, but there are a number of attitudes and practices that they have in common. Following are three. Every person who has one of them is not necessarily a fascist. But he is in a mental state that lends itself to the acceptance of fascist aims.
1.Pitting religion, racial, and economic groups against one another in order to break down the national unity is a device of the divide and conquer technique used by Hitler to gain power in Germany and in other countries. With slight variations, to suit local conditions, fascists everywhere have used this Hitler method. In many countries, anti-Semitism is a dominant devise of fascism. In the United States native fascists have often been anti-Catholic, anti-Jew, anti-Negro, anti-Labor and anti-foreign born. In South America, native fascists use the same scapegoats except that they substitute anti-Protestantism for anti-Catholicism.
Interwoven with the master race theory of fascism is a well-planned hate campaign against minority races, religions, and other groups. To suit their particular needs and aims, fascists will use any one or a combination of such groups as a convenient scapegoat.
2. Fascism cannot tolerate such religious and ethical concepts as the brotherhood of man. Fascists deny the need for international cooperation. These ideas contradict the fascist theory of the master race. The color, race, creed or nationality-have rights. International cooperation, as expressed in the Dumbarton Oaks proposals, run counter to the fascist program of war and world domination. Right now our native fascists are spreading anti-British, anti-Soviet, anti-French and anti-United Nations propaganda.
3. It is accurate to call a member of a communist party a communist. For short, he is often called a Red. Indiscriminate pinning of the label "Red" on people and proposals which one opposes is a common political device. It is a favorite trick of native as well as foreign fascists.
Many fascists make the spurious claim that the world has but two choices---either fascism or communism--and they label as "communist" everyone who refuses to support them. By attacking our free enterprise, capitalist democracy and by denying the effectiveness of our way of life they hope to trap many people."74
http://www.spiritone.com/~gdy52150/chpt1.htm
The extreme anti-communism and anti-socialism stance of the fascist is beyond dispute among honest historians. Both communists and socialists were the first to enter the concentration camps in Nazi Germany. Both Mussolini and Franco fought against communist influence. From the brief survey of the fascist philosophers and extreme anti-liberal stance has been a factor in fascism from the beginning. The Nazi used socialism as a ruse to gain power, but once in power, they purged the socialists within their party. The following quotes taken from Mein Kampf will illuminate the anti-communism, anti-parliamentary democracy, and the social Darwinism of Hitler.
"Just as in 1918 we paid with our blood for the fact that in 1914 and 1915 we did not proceed to trample the head of Marxist serpent once and for all, we would have to pay most catastrophically if in the spring of 1923 we did not avail ourselves of the opportunity to halt the activity of the Marist traitors and murders of the nation for good"41 >
"As regards the possibility of putting these ideas into practice, I beg you not to forget that the parliamentary principle of democratic majority rule has by no means always dominated mankind, but to the contrary is to be found only in brief periods of history, which are always epochs of decay of peoples and states."42
"The best state constitution and state form is that which, with the most unquestioned certainty, raises the best minds in the national community to leading position and leading influence.
But as in economic life, the able men cannot be appointed from above, but must struggle through for themselves,..."43
The second quote certainly is anti-liberal as it shows Hitler's contempt for the democratic process. The last quote reveals Hitler as a social Darwinist of which Turner makes the point in several places in his book.44 Social Darwinism runs counter to the aims of socialism. In fact it is the antithesis. It allows the elite to gain further power, it willingly discards the poor and the weak as expendables.
With the anti-communism stance and Social Darwinism character of Hitler, it is not surprising that the fascist in America would come from the extreme right. The United States was right in opposing communism. But to what links? As with anything else moderation is an admirable quality, excesses of any nature are damaging. Truman or Eisenhower were not fascists for their anti-communism actions. However, Tail Gunner Joe was either a fascist or a willing dupe of fascists. The type of anti-communism of McCarthy served no other purpose than to further his political career. He openly violated the right to free speech and assembly of his victims. His aim was to destroy them with out any regard to the evidence.
The social Darwinism as initiated by Reagan and his attacks on the poor, and the dismantling of the welfare program led by Newt Gingrich will also be labeled as examples of creeping fascism. Throwing people into the streets arbitrarily to fend for themselves is destructive; it is social Darwinism at its worst. Forcing them to except wages below the minimum wage law is denying them their equal rights. But it was precisely the economic woes of Germany that allowed the Nazis to rise to power. Currently America is enjoying good economic times, but when the economy takes a turn to the south the full impact of the lack of a social safety net is going to be felt hard.
The next trait of fascism, extreme exploitation, is a direct result of one of the primary traits of fascism, extreme nationalism. The form of nationalism promoted by fascism not only concerns the standing in the world but also applies to the sacrifices that are expected of citizens. In short, the fascist state reigns supreme while the individuals are subordinate to the state. The subordination of individuals to the state is the antithesis of liberalism. Once again some quotes from Mein Kampf will suffice.
"Since for us the state as such is the only form, but the essential is its content, the nation, the people, it is clear that everything else must be subordinated to its sovereign interests."45
"a peace, supported not by the palm branches of tearful, pacifist female mourners, but based on the victorious sword of a master people, putting the world into the service of a higher culture."46
Certainly from those two quotes there can be no question of the subordination of individuals as practiced under the Nazis or to any limits short of world domination by the Nazis. It is often stated that Hitler left a road map to his future goals in Mein Kampf. There is no greater evidence of that than in the last quote. How then did he rise to power? The problem was nobody was listening. Nobody challenged his aggressive views toward war, or at best they believed that they could control or contain him. Only later did they find out the errors of that false assumption.
This writer can find only two instances of this extreme exploitation in America. Thanks to the efforts of CBS 60 Minutes and Evening News, the story broke about the Tomb of the Unknown and how the Reagan White House pressured the military to find an unknown to bury on Memorial Day 1984. Turns out that in their haste to respond to the pressure coming from the White House, they deliberately buried a fallen Soldier that wasn't so unknown. The unknown was Michael Bassie. This man had given everything to his country except for his name. And the low-life filth occupying the White House had that stripped from him so he could have a photo op on Memorial Day in an election year. This writer can think of no other action that is more despicable; it's unforgivable. Of course Reagan made sure he was the star of this photo op and used it to promote and build support for his extremist military agenda.
The second instance comes at the hands of Newt Gingrich and the Republicans of the 104th and 105th Congress. They have stripped the rights of welfare recipients and required that they participate in workfare. The problem comes in that these poor souls are not even entitled to be paid the minimum wage or the right to unionize in some cases. In other words, the Republican's answer to the poor is to force them to work in perpetual slavery with no chance of ever breaking out of poverty.
But this event is much more dangerous and goes much further than it appears. The danger here lies in the suspension of the constitutional equality under the eyes of the law. The Republicans have in effect created a sub-class in which one of the very fundamental tenets of our constitution, equality under the eyes of the law was ignored and thrown out the window. Nor is this the only example of unequal treatment of the poor at the hands of the Republicans. They also have advocated cut backs in the budget for the public defender's office. The Republicans have been very successful in their propaganda in demonizing the poor. There seems to be an almost gutter-level hatred of the poor and any aid to assist them. Instead of reaching out a compassionate helping hand towards the poor, the Republicans have adopted a mean-spirited Social Darwinist view.
This brings us to the trait of opportunistic ideology of fascism. It is perhaps one of the more confusing aspects of fascism. Mussolini appears to have been indeed a socialist before founding the fascist party. Mussolini likewise went from a pacifist to a rabid warmonger. Clearly such dramatic changes in ideology could only be based in an opportunistic grab for power. Mussolini started supporting a syndicalism economy, but by 1923, with clear objections from business leaders, he concluded the Palazzo Chigi Pact. This pact's main intent was to simplify business relations by making the fascist the sole representative of labor. In 1925, the Plazzo Vidoni agreement was signed. This agreement made Rossoni's union the sole representative of labor. It likewise prohibited the challenging of factory management. By the close of the year, the grateful employer's federation publicly announced adherence to the fascist regime.48 Such transformations illustrate the opportunistic ideology present in fascism or is it a lack of ideology, as well as further dispelling the myth that fascism is another form of socialism.
Part of the problem with the ever-changing ideology of fascism arises from the divisionism. Strasser was a socialist and it seems that Goebbels was a Marxist. Both were allowed almost free reign in promoting their own economic views--as long as it gathered more support of serve Hitler's purpose. But once their views failed to serve Hitler, they were then brow-beaten severely. An example of such reversal in party ideology of the Nazis occurred on February 14, 1926. Prior to this date, both Strasser and Goebbels had approved of a plebiscite campaign to deprive former royalty of their possessions, a measure, that was popular with the common citizens. On the given date, Hitler summoned both men to a meeting in Bamberg. Before those gathered, Hitler forced both to capitulate and abandon the program.49 Similar events have already been given, in which various Nazis were initially allowed to promote socialism in efforts to appease the lower classes in an effort to gain their support.
Examples abound throughout the history of the Nazis where they adopted their ideology to suit the audience. In October 1932, Strasser announced a new program that was a stark reversal of the program the Nazis had advocated in July. Higher taxes on the rich had been replaced with a general reduction of taxes, instead of price controls it centered on freeing prices. Instead of protectionism trade policy, export and global trade was now promoted. Likewise, much of the inflammatory rhetoric had been dropped.50
Hitler seems to have sensed the explosive nature of economics and tried to avoid the subject both publicly and within the party. From all indications, he was dissatisfied with the party planks on economic matters. The only official stance on economic matters was the 1920 twenty-five point program. However, he only referred to this policy document disparagingly in Mein Kampf and distanced himself from the document.51 Likewise Hitler would never take an aggressive stance on minor issues, he played to his audience to win their support.
[EDITOR: this by definition is a demagogue; telling the people what they want to hear to manipulate them to gain power over them]
Perhaps the most dramatic evidence of the opportunistic character of the Nazis is illustrated by the actions of thirty-nine businessmen in November 1932. The group contained such notables as Krupp, Thyssen, Bosch, Siemens, and others. In a signed letter to Hindenburg, they urged him to appoint Hitler as chancellor. In essence, they were placing a bet that the socialism ideology was a fraud and that once in power, he would be a tool of capitalist.52
The only other reversal in policy that could rival the bet that the leaders of big business made was Hitler's writings. In the first part of Mein Kampf he argued that France was the sworn and greater enemy of Germany. However, in the second part to Mein Kampf he reversed course and argued that Russia was the enemy as opposed to the first book, in which he proposed an alliance with Russia.53 This was a complete change in his foreign policy. One can only speculate as to the reasons behind such a switch.
Many writers have tried to label the Nazis as "socialists" in a folly to distance themselves from fascist theory. They are quick to point to the syndicalism policy as proof of socialist regulation of business. They are in error, of course. Syndicalism is neither left nor right in itself. It can be either, depending upon the political structure. Syndicalism with labor groups or consumers dominating the issues would indeed be socialistic in nature. On the other hand, syndicalism with only industry or business groups dominating is certainly from the right-wing of the political spectrum. The issuing of controls or goals over the production of war material by the government in a syndicalism system is neither left nor right, it's simply self-preservation. The goals and controls, including the 4-Year Plan issued by Goering, were nothing more than gearing the economy up for war-time production. In essence, they were merely self-preservation measures.
http://www.spiritone.com/~gdy52150/chpt1.htm, Part 6
Secondly, they will point toward many of the public works projects that were implemented under the Nazis as examples of socialism. An example of this, is the construction of the autobahn, a project that had been planned by previous governments, as were many of the public work projects. They likewise forget, that the Nazis took over at the bottom of an economic depression, public work projects were enacted not only in Germany, but in the U.S. as well as a means to end the depression. Many of those projects in the U.S. were the construction of useful infrastructure, such as the building of the high school in New Ulm, Minnesota. Others had a definite commercialism bent to them, such as the construction of Timberline Lodge on Mount Hood in Oregon. Labeling the construction of a facility for a commercial business as "socialism" is simply fool's folly. The same applies to many of the public works projects that were implemented under the Nazis.
Labeling such programs as "socialism" would be the same as labeling the construction of the interstate highway system as "socialism". If the Eisenhower administration had one shining moment, it was his support for the construction of the freeway system. For those that are silly enough to label such work as socialism, let them be reminded that no other single event, other than the construction of the cross-continental railroad aided the development of business. Besides the obvious advantage to shippers, the interstate highway system has spawned many new businesses. Think of the number of motels/hotels as well as the tourist traps, service stations, and others that have grown up along the freeway system. The same applies to Germany and the autobahn.
[EDITOR: I violently disagree with Yeady that the highway system that murders 50, 000 Americans each year is morally or functionally good. America would be better off with a high speed train system, but this would harm Rockefeller Illuminati oil profits.]
Finally, the same writers that label fascism as "socialism" would like their readers to believe that these government regulations and bureaucratic offices held ultimate power. Failure to comply would result in the owners being shot. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Nazis for a large part lived in fear of the leaders of big business. They were aware that they had no comprehensive economic plan and would defer to the judgement of the business leaders.
This point can be driven home with one simple example. Goering was one of the Nazis that had little economic knowledge, but harbored some of the more radical economic ideas and was fond of using regulatory offices. Goering tried first to persuade the steel industry, both the smelters and miners, to use low-grade German ore as opposed to the high-grade Swedish ore. Importation of ore from Sweden would use up precious foreign currency, as well as being a less reliable source in the event of war. The invasions of Denmark and Norway were conducted solely to protect the Nazis shipping routes for the Swedish ore. Most of the industrialists politely refused Goering's request; even under threats of arrest for sabotage, they still declined.54 None were arrested for refusal. Instead Goering formed the Herman Goering Works to take on the task. By the time of the outbreak of the war it had evolved to be one of the largest companies in Germany.
Farben is another example of the Nazis bowing to the expertise of leading corporations. With the advent of the first 4-Year Plan, they realized they needed the cooperation of business leadership in order to achieve self-sufficiency in a series of raw materials and finished products. Most of which were items would be crucial to wartime production. By the end of the war Farben, had a series of factories around concentration camps, were major users of slave labor, along with Krupp and many other corporations.
But the most damning evidence of the Nazi's unbridled corporatism was evident shortly after passage of the Enabling Act, when Hjalmar Schacht was appointed president of the Reichsbank. Schacht was a brilliant financier who helped negotiate the Dawes Plan and was largely responsible for stabilizing the currency in 1923; he also detested democracy and parliamentarianism. His first official act was the creation of Metall-Forschungsgesellschaft A.G. (Mefo), a dummy corporation of four armament firms. The state assumed the liability for their debts. The Mefo bills were not unlike promissory notes, they were issued to government contractors and could be extended to five years.55 Such favoritism of business is certainly not socialism. Today in America, such corporate aid is labeled as "corporate welfare". Note the similarity here not only to the present corporate welfare that's being doled out, but also to Eisenhower's warning of the military-industrial complex. The American military-industrial complex didn't need to invent a new plan, they were simply free to follow the example the Nazis used. In fact, fascism is inseparable from corporatism. You simply cannot have a fascist government without corporations and a capitalistic economy.
Schacht was later appointed to minister of economics in 1934, a post he retained until he resigned in 1937 over policy disputes. He was not an anti-Semitic and was conscious of the negative aspects of the takeover of Jewish business on both the economy and world opinion. By 1936, he was advocating slowing down the rearmament program, fearing the return of inflation.56 The return of inflation dispenses with the myths that the Nazis maintained strict control of corporations and the prices of goods in short order. In effect, such controls were non-existent. It should also be pointed out here that the economy at this time had taken on considerable shades of a consumer economy.
Italy used their form of syndicalism to eliminate labor unions; the Nazis followed a similar path. The workers benefited little from this unbridled corporatism. Unemployment went from an official figure of six million unemployed in 1933, to 2.7 million in 1937, and by the time of the outbreak of war there was a serious shortage of workers. But growth in wages was far less spectacular, real wages rose only sparingly. The index of wages rose from 92.5 in 1933 to 103 in 1937, an increase of a meager eleven-percent.57 Much of the increase in wages was achieved only from working longer hours. The only real increases in the plight of the workers came with more unpaid leave. Many of the other benefits produced no real benefits to the worker, such as the factory beautification program.
From looking at the philosophers of fascism, it was revealed that fascism was a reactionary movement. What then was the fascist reacting to that led to the rise of Mussolini and Hitler? Many people responding to the question would simply answer the Treaty of Versailles. But such an answer is only partially correct. It doesn't account for the widespread rise of fascism in many European countries following WWI. In fact, during the period between the two world wars, every government from the Rhine to the Pacific underwent drastic changes. In many of those, fascism had ample support but in the end was rejected. Some of the problem can be laid to the beginning dissolution of the British Empire and the arbitrary way in which maps were redrawn following WWI without regard to ethnic or natural barriers. An example would be the cobbled mess of ethnic groups that formed the former republic of Yugoslavia, an area that remains a hot spot today.
Britain and the United States were about the only two governments that did not undergo a major change during the period between the wars. However, neither was immune to the rise of fascism. The U. S. saw a rise of a great many fascist groups and groups closely aligned with the fascist in the period between the wars. The German Bund, the Silver Shirts and the mother's movement were all aligned closely with fascism. It was also this period that seen the greatest membership in the Ku Klux Klan.
The United States avoided full-blown fascism by essentially adopting fascist methods on a milder scale. This was a shameful period in the history of America. The infamous Palmer raids rounded up those with communist connections. The I.W.W was harassed constantly by Hoover and the FBI. In short, only those with non-approved political beliefs would be prosecuted. This suppression of liberty had actually begun around 1900. At the turn of the century, both conservative and liberal elements combined to pass a blizzard of new laws. This effort aimed at curbing lawless quickly became dominated by conservative elements and evolved in a tool for the right-wing for the remainder of the century. As head of the FBI, Hoover quickly targeted the leaders of the left for prosecution, ignoring the criminal actions of the hard-right groups. This has left the United States without any noticeable left wing compared to the rest of the industrial world.
Perhaps one of the first and most notable events was the trial of Sacco and Vanzetti, two immigrants charged with murder in Massachusetts. They were found guilty more on their political beliefs than on evidence. They were anarchists, atheists, and reportedly draft dodgers, beliefs that threatened the industrialists of the time.64 Both were executed after considerable protest. Their trial set a dangerous standard that people could be prosecuted for their political beliefs. The inclusion of this trial here is to serve as a reminder of a new problem that is emerging to confront the hard-right, jury nullification. Today, there is considerable debate from both sides of the political spectrum on jury nullification arising in death penalty and drug cases. It warrants close observation. If the public becomes too polarized, it could spell the end to the trial by jury system, which has served admirably for over 200 years.
Various members of the right-wing are now using this as an issue in another attempt to polarize the electorate for their own selfish purposes. These members of the right-wing are promoting a system of justice backed by mob or vigilante justice. Essentially, it's a system backed by violence--that is not unlike the tactics used by the Posse Comitatus, the Freemen, or various militias to corrupt the justice system.
The first example of political repression came in Minnesota. The then Republican Governor Burnquist used the newly created Minnesota Commission of Public Safety to suspend New Ulm's Mayor Fritsche and City Attorney Pfaender for their pacifist views after war had been declared on Germany in 1917. The following quote details some of the shameful actions taken by the commission and its connection to the hard-right.
In April 1917, soon after America declared war on Germany, the Minnesota Legislature, following ferocious debate, created the Minnesota Commission of Public Safety. This remarkable body, chaired and appointed by the governor, was given "all necessary power" to maintain order and enhance Minnesota's contribution to the war effort.
Technically limited by the state and federal constitutions, the commission essentially wielded all the authority of state government during the 18 months of its active existence.
The commission came to be dominated by representatives of the Twin Cities business community. It used its sweeping authority with gusto, not only to root out ``disloyalty'' but to combat labor unionism and agrarian activism as well.
The commission dispatched detectives throughout Minnesota to investigate people and organizations suspected of disloyalty. It regulated food prices and the liquor trade, imposing prohibition in some parts of the state. It banned union organizing and intervened on the side of management in a bitter Twin Cities streetcar strike. It created a ``Home Guard'' of some 8,000 troops to back up its decrees.
The commission served as a virtual campaign committee for Republican Gov. Joseph Burnquist in his 1918 re-election bid. It turned a blind eye toward frequent mob harassment of his opponents. It interrogated and intimidated Minnesotans who declined to purchase Liberty Bonds to finance the war effort.63
Nor was such action confined to just Minnesota, many states set up similar commissions. State sponsored-violence against leaders from the left was common place. One group that suffered immeasurably was the I.W.W, the Wobblies. On Nov 5, 1916, Washington State suffered its bloodiest labor battle of all time. The resulting carnage between a local sheriff and the Wobblies left seven dead and over fifty wounded in the city of Everett.65
All three of these events illustrate that the United States repressed those with radical ideas in the time period of WWI and immediately thereafter. Pacifist, labor leaders, and leftist political leaders were all prosecuted with equal zeal. Remember, this was the time period of the Rosewood incident and other atrocities. The prosecution was lead by the hard-right and business leaders.
But the real answer to the question is that fascism following WWI was a reaction to the Bolshevik revolution and the rise of liberalism ideals. Up until the Russian revolution, the only economic system was capitalism. Communism was a new revolutionary system. It threatened the power elite directly and gave way to a rise not only in communism--but socialism and liberalism as well. It was no accident that fascism arose first in Italy, where in the period of 1919-1922, socialists ruled in many localities. Here fascism arose in the countryside were old practices such as sharecropping were giving way to new methods. In 1920, the largest strike in Italian agriculture ever was settled when the landowners capitulated. Elsewhere, unions were wringing out concessions from the owners through strikes and boycotts.58 http://www.spiritone.com/~gdy52150/chpt1.htm - Part 7
The real appeal of European fascism was the protection it afforded against working class movements, socialism, and communism.59 Hobsbawm states it even more forcefully in claiming that without the October revolution and Leninism there would have been no need for fascism. For up until that time, the demagogic right, although politically active and noisy in many countries, had been kept in check.60 The entire Nazi movement was a reactionary movement. The reaction to the Treaty of Versailles is well known and needs no further comment, as is the opposition of fascism to liberalism, socialism and communism. Rather, the following quote will show how complete the reaction was to the events of the time.
"Today Christians... stand at the head of Germany... I pledge that I never will tie myself to parties who want to destroy Christianity...We want to fill our culture again with the Christian spirit... We want to burn out all the recent immoral developments in literature, in the theater, and in the press- in short, we want to burn out the poison of immorality which has entered into our whole life and culture as a result of liberal excess during the past...few years."61
The quote above was taken from a speech delivered by Hitler. It provides the illustration that the Nazi movement was completely a reactionary movement, reacting not only to global power politics and the rise of the left, but also to the changes in arts and culture of the time. It also provides the link to demonstrate that today's hard-right movement in the U. S. is equally reactionary, in particular, the element of the so-called religious right. Contrast it with the quote by Pat Robertson below.
"The Constitution of the United States, for instance, is a marvelous document for self-government by Christian people. But the minute you turn the document into the hands of non-Christian and atheistic people they can use it to destroy the very foundation of our society."
--Pat Robertson (The 700 Club, Dec. 30, 1981)62
Apparently, Robertson is under the impression that the Constitution applies to only those he chooses and is null and void for the rest of us. Hitler held a similar contempt for democracy. However, the point that the Nazis were reactionary has been established beyond any doubt. The reaction was not just confined to the global political scene or economic conditions, but extended into the very roots of the culture.
Starting around 1980, fascism reared its ugly head globally. Unlike the rise of fascism in the 1920s, this time the Reagan administration embraced it. The administration openly promoted class warfare, allowed the LaRocuchians access to security and intelligence agencies, filled the EPA with Coor's lackeys, and openly supported none but the elite. In essence, the Reagan administration was the American equivalent of the passage of the Enabling Act.
There is no need to expand on the violent behavior of the Nazis or fascists, as there is no dispute of their long history of violence. Instead, the violence of various groups in the United States will be explored. Many readers will immediately think of the violence that arose in the '60s during the war protests. In fact, that is the great illusion of the media. The truth is that little violence was directly attributed to war protestors. In fact, much of the violence that did come out of the war protests was the work of the FBI.
The real story of violence in the '60s was the violence inflicted upon the civil rights workers by the Klan. The early part of the '60s was marred by violence, inspired by the Klan and racial hatred of right-wing groups. Eisenhower had to use National Guards to integrate the Little Rock school system. Kennedy had to use federal marshals to integrate Old Miss. When the Supreme Court order that busing was to be used as a tool for integration, the violence spread nationally. The Klan burnt school busses in Michigan to prevent integration.
Since 1980, right-wing groups such as the Order, which murdered the Denver talk show host, Berg, likewise have dominated the violence. The leader of the Order was killed in a shoot out with law enforcement. Another right-wing group, the Posse Comitatus became a household word only after the Kahl shoot out with law enforcement in North Dakota. And of course there was the bombing of the Oklahoma federal building by the right-winger McVeigh.
[EDITOR: USG conspiracy did OKC]
Perhaps the greatest widespread use of violence since the Klan has been the bombing and violence directed against abortion clinics by members of the religious right.
Violence has been the hallmark of the hard-right in America dating back at least as far as the Know Nothing Party in the 1800s and their hatred of Catholics. It was business leaders that hired Pinkertons to murder union organizers in earlier times. Yet there is relatively little in the way to support that left-wing groups were equally violent.
[EDITOR: when left-wingers are in power, they use the USG to terrorize others re: the Clinton years, Waco etc.]
Groups like the Weathermen were violent, but the group was never more than a small fringe group. Its extremely small size limited the extent of its violence. One of the reasons for the lack of widespread violence from leftist groups has already been mentioned, the suppression of left-wing groups by the FBI.
www.nobeliefs.com/nazis.htm
Compiled by Jim Walker
The following photos provide a pictorial glimpse of Hitler, how his Nazis mixed religion with government, and the support for Hitler by the Protestant and Catholic Churches in Germany. In, no way, does this gallery of photos intend to support Nazism or anti-Semitism, but instead, intends to warn against them.
The last two traits of fascism will be explored together, as they are related by an underlying use of symbols and the inseparable nature of cults and religions. There is no doubt that both Hitler and Mussolini were in effect leaders of a cult. Their extremist views would rule out a major following otherwise. In fact, both promoted imagines consistent with cults. Both chose to use propaganda to promote larger than life imagines of themselves. Both Hitler and Mussolini were Catholics; neither appeared to be particularly active members of the church. Hitler referred to Christianity throughout Mein Kampf, as already shown by quotes of which a few more will be included here.
"The sword will become our plow, and from the tears of war the daily bread of future generations will grow."
"The more the linguistic Babel corroded and disorganized parliament, the closer drew the inevitable hour of the disintegration of this Babylonian Empire and with it the hour of freedom for my German-Austria people."
" the Lord's grace smiled on his ungrateful children."
Officially, the Nazis were a Christian group, if one can assign a religion to the group by the public policies they enacted. In this case, the assignment is based on the following prayer that the Nazis required to be recited in all public schools.
"Almighty God, dear heavenly Father. In Thy name let us now, in pious spirit, begin our instruction. Enlighten us, teach us all truth, strengthen us in all that is good, lead us not into temptation, deliver us from all evil in order that, as good human beings, we may faithfully perform our duties and thereby, in time and eternity, be made truly happy. Amen."67
It is also true that the Nazis dabbled in mysticism as well. Certainly some of the philosophers were pantheistic. But what really underlies both the religious and mysticism aspects of the Nazis is the symbolism buried underneath. In fact, one follower of fascism believed that the masses were unable to understand anything other than mere slogans. From Mein Kampf the following quote concerns the symbolism hidden behind the Nazi flag.
"Not only that the unique colors, which all of us so passionately love and which once won so much honor for the German people, attest our veneration for the past; they were also the best embodiment of the movement's will. As National Socialists, we see our program in our flag. In red we see the social idea of the movement, in white the nationalistic idea, in the swastika the mission of the struggle for victory of the Aryan man, and by the same token, the victory of the idea of creative work, which as such always has been and always will be anti-Semitic."66
At first in the quote above, Hitler is referring to the old flag of Germany. The choice of red was based on stealing from the communists and was chosen deliberately to enflame the Marxists. Throughout Mein Kampf, Hitler refers to the value of propaganda and made extensive use of symbols to convene a subtle message of hatred.
The similarities to the right-wing in America is seen. The Republicans have introduced a flag desecration amendment to protect their symbolism. Even more revealing was the letter Newt Gingrich distributed to members of GOPAC. In this letter, members were to use the following words to impart a negative image: decay, failure, sick, liberal, unionized, welfare, corrupt, greed and intolerant. The following words were to impart a positive imagine: share, legacy, control, truth, and courage.68
Cults are inherently fascist in nature. The leader demands total submersion into the cult. America today has seen far too many examples of cults and cult behavior. A recent example, would be the Waco incident that ended badly. However, there are several right-wing groups that do exhibit cult behavior besides the religious groups; the LaRouchians, many of the militias, and the Order would all qualify as cults. In addition, much of the hard-right inside the Republican Party has taken on a cult-like behavior in their idolizing Reagan. The 105th Congress renamed the Washington airport after him. In the present Congress Congressman Matt Salmmon of Arizona has introduced a bill to deface Mt Rushmore by adding Reagan's imagine to the monument.69
It has been shown beyond any reasonable doubt that Hitler and the Nazis were right-wing extremists best described as Social Darwinists, the antithesis of socialism. It was showed that the Nazis were best described by syndicalism model and that syndicalism is neither socialistic nor capitalistic, inherently. Syndicalism can be either depending upon the makeup; the Nazis were definitely capitalists in that there was no input from labor. All input was reserved for the industrialist. Further, it was shown that the industrialists openly defied Nazi desires in the case of the use of low-grade ores. It was also shown that many of the businesses that was government owned were taken over by the government prior to the Nazis, some dating all the way from the monarchy. Likewise, it was shown that many of the Nazi programs would be classified as corporate welfare today. And it was shown that the real power behind the Nazi movement was the top elitist. This should be sufficient for anyone to dispel the myth that the Nazis were socialist, when in fact they were capitalistic extremists.
In defining fascism, three traits stand above all others, totalitarian, nationalism, and extreme corporatism. In fact, one can not have fascism without corporatism. Other traits of fascism, such as destructive divisionism and the use of violence are secondary. As fascist ideology evolved in the later half of the 20th Century, a happy face was put on fascism by its leaders as they down played the violence and racism. This can be seen best in the far right-wing extremist groups currently active in the United States.
Additionally, there is one fact that absolutely places the Nazis and fascism in the extreme right-wing portion of the political spectrum, and not the left. No one disputes that a communist revolution attacks the ruling elite of a country. Similarly, socialism and liberalism also attacks the same ruling elite, but the right-wing extremists try to claim the opposite. In reality, these systems merely seek methods to ease the burden and allow the lower classes to prosper rather than attacking the elite. The Nazis, on the other hand, did not attack the ruling elite of Germany. The rich industrialists were allowed to continue their ways, eased by laws that the Nazis enacted for their benefit. Likewise, the nobility of Germany was supported by the Nazis. In short, the Nazis adopted the ruling elite in Germany and supported them, the exact opposite of what a left-leaning political ideology would support.
There is no better proof of the Nazi support for the ruling elite than looking at who supported Hitler in the 1930s in America. Granted, many lower class people were involved in the pro-Hitler movement just as in Germany. But like Germany, it was the rich industrialists that funded these groups. Hearst ordered his newspapers to print pro-Nazi articles. In fact, he had them print the Nazi propaganda directly from Gobbels. Irenee du Pont funded several pro-fascist groups. Henry Ford was well known for his praise of Hitler and funded many pro-Nazis in the 30s. Andrew Mellon and John D. Rockefeller were supporters of Hitler as well. No one is foolish enough to argue that these men were not part of the ruling elite or rich industrialists in America at the time. In fact, support for Hitler among the rich industrialists was rampant.
The continued propagation of such nonsense by the present right-wing is nothing short of propaganda. It fits closely with the Nazis' use of propaganda and the symbolism proposed by Gingrich and his negative words. Nor will it change the history of the right-wing support of the Nazis.
http://www.spiritone.com/~gdy52150/chpt1.htm - top
1. http://www.cuttingedge.org/news/n1124.cfm
2. Why Americans Hate Politics, E. J. Dionne, Touchstone, 1991, p152-154.
3. Thomas Jefferson: In his Own Words, Maureen Harrison & Steve Gilbert, Barnes & Noble, 1996, p369.
4. http://www.friesian.com/arthur.htm
5. http://www.miami.edu/phi/schonp.htm
http://members.aol.com/KathorenaE/private/philo/Nietz/nietz.html
http://userzweb.lightspeed.net/~tameri/nietz.html
http://users.aol.com/Irdetrigen/index4.html
< http://www.us.itd.umich.edu/~alexboko/zar/
http://pitt.edu/~wbeurry/nietzsche.html
http://www.ewu.edu/~millerj/nietzsche.index.html
6. http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/bergson.htm
7. Himmler, Peter Padfield, MJF books,1990, p260.
8. Mein Kampf, Adolf Hitler, Houghton Mifflin, 1971, p 394.
9. Mein Kampf, p325.
< 10. Lott renounces White Racialist Group He praised in 1992, Thomas Edsell, Washington Post, Dec 16,1998.
12. Thirty Days, Henry Ashby Turner, Addison-Welsey, 1996, p5.
13. Thirty Days, page 9-15.
14. Thirty Days, page 164.
15. Mein Kampf, pages 645-646.<
16. Mein Kampf, page 218.
17. Adolf Hitler, Robert Payne, Barnes & Noble,1995, page 213.
18. Adolf Hitler, page 237
19. Who Financed Hitler, James Pool, Pocket Books, 1997, page 11.
20. Who Financed Hitler, page 45
21. Who Financed Hitler, page 83.<
22. U. S. Firms' Connections to Nazis Detailed, Reuters, 1/14/1999. Appeared in Boston Globe of same date
23. German Big Business and the Rise of Hitler, Henry Ashby Turner, Oxford University Press, 1985.
24. German Big Business, pages 151-152.
25. German Big Business, pages 198-200.
26. German Big Business, page 159.
27. Trading with the Enemy, Charles Higham, Barnes & Noble, 1983,pages 131-132.
28. Hitler and His secret Partners, James Pool, Pocket Books,1997, p52-53
29. The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, William Schirer, Fawcett, 1992, page 202.
30.The Rise and Fall, page 203.
31. http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/imt/nca/nca-02-16-13-index.html
32. http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/imt/nca/
33. What Real Hate Speech Sounds Like,
34. http://www.tialliance.org/tia/page4.htm
35. A Trial of Alleged hate to Begin in Texas, AP wire, Boston Globe, 1, 24, 1999 .
36. Minority Voter Intimidation Becomes election Eve Issue, AP wire, 11, 3, 1998.
37. Quite and Odd Couple to Sit in Judgement, Jim Dwyer, New York Daily news, 1, 7, 1999.
38. RNC Chairman Urges Party Member to Leave Conservative Group, Glen Johnson, AP wire, Boston Globe, 1, 19, 1999.
39. Mein Kampf, page 248.
40. http://www.fair.org/current/buchanan-bigot.html<
41. Mein Kampf, page 678.
42. Mein Kampf, page 651.
43. Mein Kampf, page 449.
44. Big Business &
45. Mein Kampf, page 575.
46. Mein Kampf, page 396.
47. Fascism, Roger Eatwell, Penguin, 1995, page 149.
48. >Fascism, p77.
49. The Rise and Fall, page 181. <
50. Big Business, page 288.
51. Big Business, page 81
52. Hitler, John Toland, Doubleday, 1976, page 276.<
53. Hitler, page 221.
54. Fascism, page 156.
55.Hitler, page 308.
56. Fascism, page 155.
57. Fascism, page 160.
58. Fascism, page 53-54.
59. The Age of Extremes, Eric Hobsbawm, Vintage Books, 1996, page 175.
60. The Age of Extremes, page 124.
61. www.isrp.org/
62. www.tialliance.org/tia/page6.htm
63. www.pioneerplanet.com/archive/cent/dox/cent13.htm
64. www.english.upenn.edu/~afries/88/sacvan.html
65. www.ac.wwu.edu/~n9517146/everettmassacre.html
66. Mein Kampf, pages 498-499.
67. http://w3.trib.com/FACT/1st.religion.alert.html
68. www.fair.org/extra/9502/language-control.html
69. Reagan Wanted on Mt. Rushmore, Rueters wire appearing in the 2/2/99 Boston Globe
70. The Road To Serfdom, F.A. Hayek, University of Chicago Press, 1994, Fiftieth Anniversary Edition.
71. The Road to Serfdom, page 52.
72. The Road to Serfdom, page 44. <
73. Fascism and Big Business, Daniel Guerin, Pathfinder, 1973, pages 208-213
74. Time Bomb, E.A. Piller, Arco Publishing, 1945, p13-14.
75. Southern Exposure, Stetson Kennedy, DoubleDay, 1946, page 189
Chapter 2
Chapter 3: Corporate Law: A History
www.spiritone.com/~gdy52150/colaw.html
Lets begin this chapter with a few items from the news. First, another twenty-nine deaths have been attributed to Firestone tires. In particular, these deaths are linked to tires that the government wanted to include in the first recall, but relented under assurances and pressure from corporate management. The second item on the news was the shortage of electric capacity in California. California had just deregulated the electric utilities this year and consumers' bills skyrocketed. People in California have been asked to turn off the lights on the Christmas decorations or possibly face a blackout. However, there was more to the story. It seems that the shortage was at least partially self made by the utilities themselves.
In the early 1990s, the local media in Portland, Oregon, carried several stories about a poor lad who had developed leukemia and, without a life saving bone marrow transplant, would die. The family's health insurance refused to pay for the transplant. The family was given a quote of the cost by a Seattle hospital. The family was fortunate enough to raise the required amount through community car washes and bake sales and promptly returned to the Seattle hospital seeking treatment for their son. However, even with a certified check for the amount they had been quoted, the hospital refused, saying that the cost of such a transplant operation was almost double the price previously quoted. Dejected, the family grimly returned home to Portland. The local media then picked the story up as a cause célèbre. The community was outraged and within two weeks, the Seattle hospital relented to do the transplant for the original price. In short, the hospital was not basing the cost of the transplant on actual cost; rather it was basing the cost on the highest dollar figure they could extract from that family.
Nor is this the only case of such price gouging in the mid-1990s, it was reported that the supply of interferon was being hoarded by the producers in an attempt to drive up the price. After the Valdez ran aground all of the oil companies raised their prices by one-third, claiming a shortage of crude.
In Kentucky, a mine explosion killed seven miners. The corporation was cited for gross violations of safety regulations; no fans to draw out methane gas were even present. Many of the widows of this explosion ended up on welfare when their husbands were killed. More than 6,000 people, annually, roughly 17 a day, are killed on the job, yet we never hear of an operating officer of a corporation being brought to trial for murder or manslaughter. That number omits the thousands who have died as a direct result of exposure to toxic substances or disease causing agents in the work place.
It's now common place to hear news of managers altering employees' time cards, requiring them to work after punching them out. Or to hear of yet another sweatshop in operation, not in a third-world banana republic but in our own large cities, where employees were held as virtual slaves.
Corporate welfare now totals more than $167 billion dollars annually. For the average taxpayer that means paying out $1400 a year in taxes to support corporations. Meanwhile social welfare costs are less than one-third of the cost of corporate welfare.
By 1990, ten corporations accounted for 22% of all profits in the United States. Only 400 corporations controlled 80% of all capitalist assets in the non-socialist world. 49 American banks hold controlling interest in 500 large corporations. 10 corporations own the 3 largest television networks and 62 [radio] networks.
Are these crimes by corporate America just another product of the greed and immorality of the Reagan administration and its agenda of "free enterprise"? Or are these symptoms of a much deeper problem? It should be readily apparent that fascism was a top-down revolution of the elite. It was the large industrialists that brought Hitler to power in a backroom deal, almost an exact parallel to the candidacy of George W. Bush in 2000 and the special interest money behind him.
Before considering fascism within the United States, an understanding of corporations and how they have evolved to become a menace to our freedoms is needed. Make no mistake that the danger posed by corporations and the almost inherent fascism that accompanies a capitalistic economy poses the greatest threat to the liberty that anyone will ever face in their lifetime. However, most Americans understand little about how corporations became so powerful. They are largely unaware of the past restrictions on corporations that served the nation in good stead. A brief look at past state constitutions and court cases will provide the reader with a background in understanding how corporations were kept in check in the 1800s. It wasn't until after the Civil War that corporations became so prominent and powerful.
In the past, corporate laws held corporations in check up until the later part of the 1800s with the rise of the silver and railroad barons. In fact, corporate law evolved along with the emergence of a wealthy elite class. The first large change in corporate law came in the 1880s when corporations were given the rights of personhood. A case dating in the first half of the 1920s required the government to obtain search warrants to obtain corporate files. A decision that no doubt saved more than one profit monger supplying arms in WWI and hindered the prosecution of corporations that traded with the Nazis during WWII.
The old adage that "you can't fight city hall" applies in spades to corporations. Almost everyone has experienced changes corporations made without permission to personnel insurance policies, banking accounts and mutual fund accounts. In effect, corporations control virtually every aspect of life today, including the news.
Today, many senior citizens make monthly pilgrimages to Canada to refill their prescription drugs. Maine has even adopted a law requiring future drug prices must be comparative to those in Canada. Even an Internet site exists to help seniors to obtain their prescriptions through mail from Canada. Because American drug companies were losing millions in these cross-border sales, the George W. Bush administration banned such sales.
So what is the difference between Canada's healthcare system and that of the United States? If one was to listen to the extreme right and the Republican Party, they are screaming that Canada's healthcare system is "socialistic". Balderdash! The same prescription drugs that can be obtained in Canada for a fraction of the price they sell for in the United States are produced by the very same corporations that are gouging American citizens. If those corporations were owned and run by the government, then it would truly be a socialistic system. But, why the lie? It is simple. Canada chooses to regulate its corporations. We have the same choice--but the right-wing politicians are shills bought and paid for by the very corporations that they are in charge of regulating. Its simply a diversion and scare tactic perfected by the Republicans to scream "communism" or "socialism" whenever anything should threaten their meal ticket.
A good example was the Republican response to President Clinton's proposal to expand Medicare. The Republicans chose Senator Bill Frist of Tennessee to deliver their response. Frist pretended to be just an "old country doctor overwhelmed by regulations". Frist's performance was truly deserving of an Academy Award for best actor as the quote below exemplifies.
"You know, my father was a family doctor for 55 years. As a young boy making housecalls with him, I remember his stethoscope, his doctor's bag, and best of all his wonderful and compassionate heart."
However, the facts from Roll Call reveal a different picture.14 While Bill Frist is indeed a doctor, he is hardly a simple country doctor. In 1968, Frist's father and brother help launched the Hospital Corporation of America. Frist's wealth comes from his stock holdings in this giant healthcare unit. In 1996, Frist disclosed a minimum of $13.7 million in assets; $8 million of which was in Hospital Corporation of America. Of course, Senator Frist omitted his holdings in this healthcare giant in his response, just as he omitted the fact that Hospital Corporation of America faced a Justice Department probe into charges of widespread fraudulent Medicare billing schemes. In other words, the ones writing the laws and regulations are the corporations.
Here we have the crux of the problem, regulation. Regulation of corporations is not socialism; when done to promote the common good, it is liberalism at its finest hour. As paper entities, corporations have no rights--only people have rights. Corporations only have conditional obligations to fulfill for the society that created them. It is the obligation of that society in creating a corporation to ensure that it works to the common good and welfare of the society and not just to the benefit of a few moneyed interests. That is liberalism, not socialism. Perhaps, George Soros stated the problem best by saying one cannot have a global economy without first having a global society. By "society," he means a government or other regulatory mechanism.1 The same applies equally well within a nation. This does not imply that corporations are necessarily bad or evil; they are just a tool for any society to better itself. However, left unregulated, corporations can and do acquire absolute power, which leads directly to the fascist state of corporate rule.
Before proceeding further, one needs to understand how corporate law and regulations have evolved. In doing so, many myths commonly held by the hard right today about the founding fathers will be dispelled. The founding fathers were indeed liberals and did believe in a capitalistic economy. However, they also believed strongly in regulating trade. So much so, that one of the enumerated powers in the constitution granted the federal government is the power to regulate interstate commerce. It is a bald-faced-lie to assume that the enumerated power concerning the regulation of commerce between states only applied to tariffs between the thirteen colonies or that the founders were supportive of corporations.
Corporations first came about in the middle of the 1600s in England when the crown vested governmental authority to certain commerce groups. The royal charters regulated the trading company or corporations, since only the Crown had the right to govern trade. The right of the Crown to regulate or control corporations largely went unused, leading to much abuse and monopolistic power. Some royal charters had their own governors and armies such as the East India Company.
In fact, it was the East India Company that led to the Boston Tea Party. At the time, the colonies were boycotting tea, which was controlled almost solely by the East India Company. In an effort to prop up sagging profits from the boycott, the British cut taxes on tea. This in turn cut into the profit of a group of Americans smuggling tea into the colonies. Seeing their profits eroded by the tax cut, they raided the English ships in the harbor. While the classical story of the Boston Tea Party being a protest over "rising taxes and tax without representation" makes for good patriotic propaganda, it is patently false and has taken on mythical proportions.
This was but one of the many abuses the colonies suffered at the hands of English corporations. For instance, American colonial settlements often were patents granted to English corporations by the Crown. South and North Virginia were two such patents. These corporations obtained their labor supply with indentured slaves. Typically, after seven years of labor, the indentured slave would be given one hundred acres. Astoundingly, two-thirds of the colonists at the time of the revolution were estimated to have been indentured slaves. Virginia, Maryland and Pennsylvania all began as commercial enterprises ran by chartered corporations.
A full listing of such abuses is beyond the scope of this book. However, the examples provided are sufficient to illustrate the contempt many of the founders had for corporations, as well as the need to regulate them. Perhaps the eloquent words of Thomas Jefferson best sum up the founding fathers' outlook toward corporations.
"I hope we shall take warning from the example of England and crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations which dare already to challenge our Government to trial, and bid defiance to the laws of our country "
The concept of granting a charter as a privilege and not a right carried over into early American corporate law. Thus, the present view that corporations hold a property right is based on another myth. In fact, the view of this property right did not come about until after the Civil War. Before this time, the concept of a corporate charter as a privilege was the commonly held view. The present view of a corporate charter having property rights only came about through judicial activism and through various state legislators.
The concept of corporate charters as a privilege was clearly carried forward into the Articles of Confederation, when in 1781 Congress granted a national charter to the Bank of North America. Likewise, this concept of a privilege was carried into the Constitutional Convention of 1787. During the convention, James Madison twice proposed that Congress be given the power to grant charters. Both proposals were met with failure, although no formal vote on either measure was ever taken. Various members opposed such proposals as unnecessary or feared that they would lead to monopolies. Based on his fears of a national bank, Jefferson opposed the idea of federal charters fearing they would create monopolies. Jefferson was to lose on both views when Congress later granted a federal charter for the National Bank. One can hardly blame the delegates to the convention for believing that there was no need for proposals regulating corporations since there were less than 40 corporations in 1787. That number rose to 334 by 1800.
Thus, the Constitution of the United States was left with only two clauses to regulate corporations: the commerce clause in Article I Section VIII and the obligation of contract clause in Article I Section X. The regulation and granting of corporate charters was left to the various states. The states continued to treat a corporate charter as a privilege granted only under special acts of their legislators. However, the process of hearings and petitioning the state legislators was plagued with delays, favoritism and outright corruption.
What many people fail to understand is the Bill of Rights originally consisted of twelve rights. On December 20th, 1787, Jefferson wrote to James Madison about his concerns regarding the Constitution. He listed what he did not like in the new constitution in the excerpt below.
"First, the omission of a bill of rights, providing clearly, and without the aid of sophism, for freedom of religion, freedom of the press, protection against standing armies, restriction of monopolies, the eternal and unremitting force of the habeas corpus laws, and trials by jury in all matters of fact triable by the laws of the land, and not by the laws of nations."
Besides noting the many freedoms that now compose the Bill of Rights, Jefferson also noted the lack of restriction on monopolies. Many of the revolutionaries of 1776 believed any institution made up by and of humans-from governments to churches to corporations-must be subordinate to individual people in terms of the rights and powers held by the institution. This is perhaps best stated by Thomas Paine in The Rights of Man as the example below illustrates.
"that government is a compact between those who govern and those who are governed; but this cannot be true, because it is putting the effect before the cause; for as man must have existed before governments existed, there necessarily was a time when governments did not exist, and consequently there could originally exist no governors to form such a compact with. The fact therefore must be, that the individuals themselves, each in his own personal and sovereign right, entered into a compact with each other to produce a government: and this is the only mode in which governments have a right to arise, and the only principle on which they have a right to exist."
Jefferson received a good response in ten of the measures comprising the original bill of rights. The two issues of banning a standing army and blocking corporations from gaining monopolistic control over industries, were meeting with resistance and failed to pass. The Federalist were in power, a group Jefferson referred to as "the rich and the well born." The following quote from James Madison confirms the distrust of corporations held by the founding fathers.
"There is an evil, which ought to be guarded against in the indefinite accumulation of property from the capacity of holding it in perpetuity by ... corporations. The power of all corporations ought to be limited in this respect. The growing wealth acquired by them never fails to be a source of abuses."
Sub-Section 1
The first blow to increasing corporate power came in 1795 as the pace of incorporations continued to expand. There was a movement to grant general charters to alleviate the problems with hearings and petitions. North Carolina was the first state in 1795 to enact a general incorporation law, followed by Massachusetts in 1799, New York in 1811 and Connecticut in 1837.2 However, some states required more than a simple majority for granting, renewing or altering a corporate charter. In 1840s, citizens in New York, Delaware, Michigan and Florida required a two-thirds vote of their state legislatures to do so. In Wisconsin and four other states every bank charter had to first be approved by the voters within the state and then the charter was recommended by their legislatures.
Nevertheless, even under a general incorporation law, states still treated the corporate charters as a privilege and restricted the activities of corporations to a great extent. The following comprises some of the limitations placed on corporations by various states.
Limited Duration:
Charters were granted only for a period of 10, 20 or 30 years after which the corporation had to be liquidated and the proceeds distributed among the shareholders.
Limited Land Holdings:
Many states imposed limitations on the amount of land a corporation could own. Most often, the amount of land was limited to that required for the factory or mill site.
Limited Capital Holdings:
Once again, many states limited the amount of money or financial assets a corporation could possess. Some states banned corporations from owning other corporations or stock in them. Once a corporation exceeded the limit, it had to be either dissolved or split.
Specific Purpose Charters:
This was perhaps the most common of all restrictions in the early years of this country. Corporations were chartered only for a specific purpose such as the building of a canal or road. Once the stated purpose was completed, the corporation was dissolved. Now charters are issued that enable a corporation to engage in any type of business.
No Limitations on Liability:
Directors, managers and shareholders were held to be fully liable for any debts or damages. In some cases, the lender or injured party was entitled to double or triple the damages. Other states imposed extremely high interest rates until the debt was fully paid.
Restrictive Shareholder Rights:
The internal governance of corporations was much more restrictive than it is today. Shareholders had more rights. In case of mergers, some states required a unanimous vote of shareholders.
Restrictions on Pricing:
Some states maintained the right to set prices on corporate products. Wisconsin, for one, gave the state legislature the power to set prices on products after reviewing the corporations' expenses.
Revocable Charters:
States maintained the right to revoke or change a charter at the will of the its legislature. Almost all of the states adopted this clause after 1820.
Before continuing to look at various state constitutions of the early 1800s a brief review of a couple of early Supreme Court cases is needed. One of the cases led to most states including a clause allowing for the modification or annulment of any charters the state may grant. Perhaps one of the best Chief Justices of the Supreme Court of all time was John Marshall, appointed by John Adams in 1801. It was Marshall who shaped the Supreme Court into being a full third branch of government and strengthened the federal system.
Marshall presided over several landmark cases with a pro-business outcome. Four cases are notable. In Fletcher v. Peck, the sanctity of a written contract was upheld. In Gibbons v. Ogden the court established the power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce to avoid a monopoly. In McCullough v. Maryland, the court ruled that the state had no right to tax the federal bank. However, it was in Dartmouth v. Woodward, which exerted the most influence in later years. Daniel Webster argued the case for Dartmouth before the court and implied that there was a property right. The Dartmouth case was the first case, which tried to attach a property right to a corporate charter.
Marshall was well-known for his opinions and choosing his words with the precision of a surgeon's scalpel. However, Marshall's opinion granted no property rights to a corporation. Rather, in the Dartmouth case, he extended the Fletcher case and the principle of the sanctity of a written contract to include states as well as corporations as the excerpt below shows.
"A corporation is an artificial being, invisible, intangible and existing only in the contemplation of the law.... It possesses only those properties which the charter of its creation confers upon it....The opinion of the Court after mature deliberation, is that this is a contract, the obligation of which cannot be impaired without violating the Constitution of the United States."3
Marshall defined this case very narrowly. There was no mention of any property rights in his decision. It was simply a decision based on the sanctity of contracts. However, this was perhaps the first and most important pro-business case that has led to corporate abuse. Marshall correctly ruled in defining the case narrowly to contract law.
However, later pro-corporate judicial activists would use this decision to confer the rights of a person onto corporations, a decision that Marshall obviously did not share because he defined a corporation very narrowly as an artificial being that only had the properties, which its charter granted it. Marshall clearly stated that the only "rights" a corporate has comes from its charter--and not from the Constitution. Again, a corporate charter is a privilege--and not a property rights issue. Thus, the present-day view of corporations having property rights and the rights of a person only came about through perversion of the law and the Constitution.
However, it was this case in 1819 that led to the almost universal inclusion of states to contain language to amend and revoke charters into both state laws and state constitutions. Because the states included such language, it shows that the granting of a charter was a privilege that carried no rights and could be revoked whenever corporate activities were not in the general interests of the state or the people.
A brief look at various state constitutions of the 1800s will further emphasize the point that a corporate charter is a privilege. A look at the Constitution of Pennsylvania (1838) reveals the clause for revocation and establishes a time limit of 20 years for all corporate charters in Article I Section 25 as follows:
"No corporate body shall be hereafter created, renewed, or extended, with banking or discounting privileges, without six months' previous public notice of the intended application for the same in such manner as shall be prescribed by law. Nor shall any charter for the purposes aforesaid be granted for a longer time than twenty years; and every such charter shall contain a clause reserving to the legislature the power to alter, revoke, or annul the same, whenever in their opinion it may be injurious to the citizens of the commonwealth, in such manner, however, that no injustice shall be done to the corporators. No law hereafter enacted shall create, renew, or extend the charter of more than one corporation."4
Nor was Pennsylvania the only state to limit corporations to a set time limit. Maryland legislators restricted manufacturing charters to forty years, mining charters to fifty, and most others to thirty years. Several other states included time limits in corporate charters, including Louisiana, Michigan.
The revocation clause was initially written into the Pennsylvanian Constitution in 1784. Clauses of revocation were first commonly found in insurance and banking charters. Further, the revocation clause was broadened and strengthened from 1784 to 1857 when the legislature became required to revoke charters whenever corporate activities were deemed injurious to the community. Notice the specific mention of corporations engaged in banking. Private banking corporations were banned altogether by the Indiana Constitution in 1816, and by the Illinois Constitution in 1818. Ohio, Pennsylvania and Mississippi revoked charters throughout the early 1800s of banks that engaged in activities that would leave them insolvent or in a financially unsound condition. Limitations on railroads were another common feature in many state constitutions. New York, Ohio, Michigan and Nebraska successfully revoked charters from a wide range of businesses including matches, oil, sugar and whiskey. By 1870, 19 states included a revocation clause (presently 49 of the 50 states have a revocation clause). In 1857, Pennsylvania amended its constitution with Article XI, Section 6 with the following clause is found.
"The commonwealth shall not assume the debt, or any part thereof, of any county, city, borough, or township, or of any corporation or association, unless such debt shall have been contracted to enable the State to repel invasion, suppress domestic insurrection, defend itself in time of war, or to assist the State in the discharge of any portion of its present indebtedness."
Again, such a clause was commonplace in the early 1800s. The Alabama Constitution of 1875 can be used to illustrate two of the other common restrictions. In Article XIV Sections 5 and 9 respectively.
No corporation shall engage in any business other than that expressly authorized in its charter.
No corporation shall issue preferred stock without the consent of the owners of two-thirds of the stock of said corporation.5
The concept of a corporate charter as a privilege can best be illustrated by the Wyoming Constitution of 1889. Although the Wyoming Constitution allows for the creation of corporations under general law, it contains many restrictions on corporations, as follow.
The legislature shall provide for the organization of corporations by general law. All laws relating to corporations may be altered, amended or repealed by the legislature at any time when necessary for the public good and general welfare, and all corporations doing business in this state may as to such business be regulated, limited or restrained by law not in conflict with the constitution of the United States.
All powers and franchises of corporations are derived from the people and are granted by their agent, the government, for the public good and general welfare, and the right and duty of the state to control and regulate them for these purposes is hereby declared. The power, rights and privileges of any and all corporations may be forfeited by willful neglect or abuse thereof. The police power of the state is supreme over all corporations as well as individuals.6
In the second paragraph above, it is clearly stated that a corporation's powers come only from the people and that it is subservient to the people for the public good and general welfare. Wyoming's Constitution is also the source of the following strong anti-trust language:
There shall be no consolidation or combination of corporations of any kind whatever to prevent competition, to control or influence productions or prices thereof, or in any other manner to interfere with the public good and general welfare.
California's Constitution of 1849 as amended by Article XII in 1879 has perhaps the longest listing of restrictions on corporations with a total of 24 sections.7 Sadly, 20 of the 24 sections have already been repealed. In Section 3, the state holds all shareholders responsible for the debt of the corporation. Once again another myth, the myth of limited liability, is destroyed. Notice in the text that follows of Section 3 that the shareholder need not be a present owner, he only had to be a shareholder at the time the debt was incurred. In Ohio, Missouri and Arkansas, stockholders were liable over and above the stock they actually owned. In the 1870s, seven state constitutions made bank shareholders doubly liable for any debts.
Each stockholder of a corporation. or joint stock association, shall be individually and personally liable for such proportion of all its debts and liabilities contracted or incurred, during the time he was a stockholder, as the amount of stock or shares owned by him bears to the whole of the subscribed capital stock, or shares of the corporation or association. The directors or trustees of corporations and joint-stock associations shall be jointly and severally liable to the creditors and stockholders for all moneys embezzled or misappropriated by the officers of such corporation or joint stock association during the term of office of such director or trustee.
Section 8 prohibits corporations from infringing upon the rights of individuals:
The exercise of the right of eminent domain shall never be so abridged or construed as to prevent the Legislature from taking the property and franchises of incorporated companies and subjecting them to public use the same as the property of individuals, and the exercise of the police power of the State shall never be so abridged or construed as to permit corporations to conduct their business in such manner as to infringe the rights of individuals or the general well-being of the State.
Section 9 limits the activities of corporations to those that are defined in their charters.
No corporation shall engage in any business other than that expressly authorized in its charter, or the law under which it may have been or may hereafter be organized; nor shall it hold for a longer period than five years any real estate except such as may be necessary for carrying on its business.
By looking at several different state constitutions from the 1800s, it is clearly apparent that in times gone by severe restrictions were placed on corporate activities. In the process, many of the current myths concerning corporations have been destroyed, such as that of limited liability. Even more remarkably, this quick look at state constitutions has revealed that the granting of a charter as a privilege--and not a right survived at least up until 1889 when the Wyoming Constitution was adopted; the phrase, for the public good and general welfare is unmistakable in its intent.
Unfortunately, the extent of regulating corporations cannot be revealed by just looking at the state constitutions. One would need to review all state laws to get a full understanding of the extent of regulation. Such a review would be a daunting task and beyond the scope of even a book let alone a single chapter. However, one can glean a glimpse of it by looking at a list of the more important Supreme Court cases.
The first important case following the Marshall court came in 1839 in Bank of Augusta v. Earle.8 The court ruled that corporations were "persons" in the state of their charter, but were free to do business in other states. However, the court stopped short of declaring corporations as citizens protected from state laws, which violated the federal constitution.
In 1844, the court expanded the power of corporations and struck a blow against local control in Louisville, Cincinnati & Charleston Railroad v. Letson. In this case, the court ruled that corporations are citizens of the chartering state, and further added that the Constitution's diversity clause (Article. III Section. 2) allows corporate cases to be heard in federal court. As more and more corporations were chartered, their power increased at a quickening pace. The increases in power still came about through judicial activism. With the increase in number and increases in corporate power, wealth became concentrated into the hands of the few. After becoming president, Lincoln lamented:
"I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country....corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed."
www.spiritone.com/~gdy52150/colawp2.html
The three decades following the Civil War saw further increases in the number of corporations and a much more rapid pace of favorable court rulings. Part of the increasing numbers of corporations no doubt came from the great give-away of public lands to some 61 railroad companies. However, even with the huge land grants, the railroads could not live within the conditions set forth by the grants and more than one-third of the land, a total of 190 million acres, was forfeited. Even today, the terms of those grants are being disputed in court cases, most notably in the clear cutting of timber from and the shipping of the raw logs to Asia.
In 1868, the Supreme Court ruled that corporations were not citizens within the context of Article IV Section 2 of the Constitution. Elaborating, the court defined a citizen to apply only to natural persons, members of the body politic, and those owing allegiance to the state. Corporations only had the properties conferred on it by the legislature. Citizenship incurred an obligation of allegiance to the state. The many cartel agreements that American corporations willingly signed with German corporations granted allegiance to the German corporations and hindered both world wars immensely.
In 1876, the Supreme Court ruled in Munn v. Illinois that corporations with a public interest (in this case, the rate grain elevators charged farmers for shipping) were subject to state regulation. The court further ruled that what constituted a reasonable rate was a legislative and not a judicial question. This case is also very similar to a case settled before the Wisconsin Supreme Court. In Attorney General v. Northwestern Railroad, the court ruled that the state could set maximum fares on classes of rail transportation.9
It is important to note here, that Justice Stephen J. Field dissented in Munn. Lincoln appointed Field in 1863 to the Supreme Court in a move that brought the number of justices to ten. Field would serve for another 34 years. It is equally import to note that Field's opinions were more often at odds with the majority. He had just three concepts of government. One, he felt it was not a function of the government to protect individual liberty. Two, government should be limited (and this fit with his laissez faire economic views). Three, only the U.S. government should have the right to interact with foreign governments. Field first expressed his view that the 14th amendment protected private businesses from government regulation in the Munn case.
In 1879, Judge Lorenzo Sawyer of the Ninth Circuit Court ruled in the Orton case that the federal government had control over the railroad land grants. However, he further restricted state regulation in controlling ulra vires acts of corporations. Stated otherwise, it means that corporate actions go beyond the powers actually granted to corporations. The ruling of the court led directly to settlers being evicted forcibly in the Mussel Slough battle of 1880, in which five settlers were killed. Sawyer is best described as a flatterer of Field, and Field was also involved in this case. Sawyer was involved in several railroad cases that will shortly follow.
In 1882, Sawyer ruled in the San Mateo Railroad case in the Ninth Circuit Court that corporations were persons. Field was likewise involved. However, it is a matter of record that Sawyer owned stocked in the Central Pacific Railroad. Additionally, both Sawyer and Field were close friends of Leland Stanford and other parties involved in the rail cases. Sawyer was uniquely placed to expand the powers of corporations and used unorthodox interpretations of statues and judicial review to do so.
In 1886, the Illinois Supreme Court struck down state Granger laws regulating railroad rates in Wabash v. Illinois. The high point of pro-business judicial activism occurred in 1886. In this year alone, the court struck down 230 state laws passed to regulate corporations. It was also the year of the most grievous act of all in furthering corporate power. This was the year that the court handed down the ruling in Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad declaring that corporations were persons under the 15th Amendment. At the very outset of the case Chief Justice, Morrison R. Waite stated:
"The Court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a state to deny to any person the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does."
This outrageous ruling has done more to damage our liberty and freedoms than any other single ruling in the history of the country. It in effect gave corporations the same rights as persons, but with none of the obligations and social responsibility carried with those rights. It paved the way for rendering the people subservient to corporations. It is important to note the year this ruling came down corresponds to the height of the robber barons.
Before proceeding further, a closer look at the members of this Supreme Court is needed. This court was undoubtedly the court that was the most agonistic court toward individual freedom and liberty than any other court, with the possible exception of the Rehnquist court of today. Just as the Rehnquist court voided the results of the 2000 election and appointed George W. Bush president, Associate Justice Joseph Bradley of this court cased the deciding vote in giving Rutherford B. Hayes the presidency.
This was the same court that rendered the Civil Rights Act of 1875 invalid in Plessy v. Ferguson. In essence, the court threw out the 14th Amendment in their ruling in applying the amendment to individuals as it was intended. Even more telling of the abusive nature of the court on civil rights was that number of fourteenth amendment cases between 1890 and 1910 only 19 dealt with the Negro while 288 dealt with corporations.
Nor was this court any more friendly to women's suffrage. In Bradwell v. Illinois, the court upheld an Illinois ruling that denied women a license to practice law as a host of women suffrage and women rights cases followed the passage of the 14th Amendment. In 1886, the Supreme Court Justices were Samuel F. Miller, Stephen J. Field, Joseph P. Bradley, John M. Harlan, Stanley Matthews, William B. Woods, Samuel Blatchford, Horace Gray, and Chief Justice Morrison. R. Waite. The Chief Justice, Waite shared similar views with Field. Waite believed that the first ten amendments applied only to the federal government and were not intended to limit the powers of the various states. Samuel Miller declared that any taxation was robbery in 1874.
The invoking of the 14th Amendment in the Santa Clara case has been ridiculed by later justices. Seventy year later in Connecticut General Life Insurance Company v. Johnson Justice Hugo Black wrote.
"Certainly when the fourteenth amendment was submitted for approval, the people were not told that ratifying an amendment granting new and revolutionary rights to corporations...and were not told that it was intended to remove corporations in any fashion from the control of the state governments. The fourteenth followed the freedom of a race from slavery...Corporations have neither race or color."
William Douglas was another later justice who ridiculed the decision.
In 1890, the Sherman Antitrust Act was passed outlawing contract, combinations, trust or conspiracies, which restrained or monopolized trade. Following passage, the largest wave of corporate mergers yet swept across the country. Section 6 of the act required the forfeiture of any property transported across state lines that fell under the act. Sections 7 and 8 both defined corporations as persons.
In 1890, in Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway v. Minnesota the court began retreating from its earlier ruling in Munn. The court now amended its earlier ruling by stating that rail rates were subject to judicial review and due process if set by a commission. A series of cases followed, all with the court favoring a pro-railroad or corporate rulings. In Smythe v. Ames in 1898, the court further extended the ruling to allow for judicial review even if the rates were set by legislature.
In addition, in 1890, New Jersey intensified the race to the bottom by relaxing its general corporate laws. After this time, New Jersey would allow corporate charters for holding companies, which permitted corporations to trade stock of other corporations and to issue their own stock as payment. In 1892, New Jersey went further by repealing its antitrust law. In 1896, New Jersey allowed charters to be granted for any legal purpose and removed any restrictions on mergers. Likewise the 50-year limit on corporate life was removed, and for the first time, New Jersey would now grant charters to corporations operating outside its boarders. Shareholders' rights received a blow as well. Under the new laws of the state, directors were allowed to amend bylaws without shareholder approval, and could now rely on proxy voting with all shareholder meetings held in New Jersey. The new laws were so popular that between 1897-1904, corporations chartered in New Jersey with a net worth of $20 million or more increased to 104 from a mere 15 in 1896. Enough revenue from the filing fees and franchise taxes was generated to allow the state to abolish property taxes.
Sub-Section 1
In response, Delaware passed a General Corporation Law in 1899 that allowed corporations to write any provisions they wished in creating, defining, limiting and regulating the power of the corporations. This change in Delaware law figures prominently as the reason the du Ponts reincorporated in Delaware.
In 1893, the court issued perhaps its first anti-union ruling in U.S. v. Workingmen's Amalgamated Council. The court upheld an injunction against a union on grounds that the Interstate Commerce Act required carriers to accept freight without discrimination. Also in 1893, corporations were first given the protection of the Bill of Rights in Noble v. Union River Logging Railroad with the ruling that the railroad was denied its 5th Amendment protection when the Department of Interior attempted to remove its approval of a right-of-way over federal lands.
Between 1894 and 1905, a host of anti-labor rulings were issued by the court. Before this time, it was common under state law for the state to limit the number of hours a person was allowed to work. In 1894, the court struck down the eight-hour shift for mechanics and labor in Low v. Rees Printing. Colorado eliminated its eight-hour day for mining and manufacturing by House Bill 203. In 1895, in Ritchie v. People, the eight-hour day was removed for women garment workers. Lochner v. New York eliminated the ten-hour day for bakers in New York in 1905. In 1895, the court ruled that the Sherman Antitrust Act could be used against interstate labor strikes because such strikes were a restraint on trade.
In 1895, the court upheld a monopoly of 98 percent of the country's sugar protection in U.S. v. E.C. Knight Company ruling that the Sherman Antitrust Act applied only to commerce and not to production. In a dissenting opinion, Justice Harlan wrote that the ruling placed the Constitution in " a condition of helplessness... while capital combines...to destroy competition."
In Hale v. Henkel the court ruled against the corporation's attempt to use the 5th Amendment, but ruled that overly broad subpoenas for corporate documents could be a violation of the 4th Amendment.
In 1911, the court broke Standard Oil into 33 corporations in Standard Oil of New Jersey v. United States. This case basically ended a short period of generally fair rulings against monopolies and trusts. It was for the most part the climax of the antitrust sentiment started by Teddy Roosevelt. The Clayton Act of 1914 legislated price discrimination within the same industry and further stipulated that labor unions were not trusts.
In 1917, Idaho became the first state to enact criminal syndicalism laws; twenty-three other states soon followed. The laws were used to suppress labor organizers, political activists and foreigners.
The Keating-Owen Child Labor Act was struck down in 1918 by the Supreme Court which ruled that goods produced by child labor did not fall under the Sherman Anti-Trust Act because it only applied to commerce.
Between 1920 and 1924, the court granted corporations the protection of the 4th Amendment ruling that government officers seizing corporate documents violated the provisions against unreasonable searches in Silverthorne Lumber v. U.S and FTC v. American Tobacco. This decision came just as investigations into profit mongering by arms makers during WWI were heating up. Likewise, the decision provided protection for those corporations that signed cartel agreements with I.G. Farben and other German corporations during WWII.
In 1937, the court ruled that Congress could protect interstate commerce from labor organizing in National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp.
In the 1938, in the Subcommittee of Federal Licensing of Corporations hearing on Senate Bill 3072 sponsored by Senator Joseph O'Mahoney of Wyoming and William Borah, O'Mahoney argued that "a corporation has no rights; it has only privileges."
In 1947, the anti-union Taft-Hartley Act was passed over the veto of President Truman. The act declared the closed shop to be illegal, outlawed secondary strikes and boycotts, allowed employers to exempt themselves from bargaining with unions if they wished to, forbade the unions from contributing to political campaigns, and required unions and their officers to confirm that they were not supporters of the Communist Party.
The Celler-Kefauver Act of 1950 amended Section 7 of the Clayton Act to include the lessening of competition through the acquisition of another company's assets.
In 1969, the Newspaper Preservation Act was passed. The act specifically exempts newspapers from the antitrust laws. Wholesale consolidation of newspapers followed until only a handful of corporations owned all the major newspapers
In 1976, the second most grievous extension to corporate power was granted to corporations by the court. In Buckley v. Valeo corporations were granted freedom of speech and corporations were now free to contribute unlimited funds to election in effect buying the candidate of their choice. The year 1976 marks the beginning of another long period of pro-corporate rulings, as Republicans were once again able to stack the court with extremely conservative justices.
In U.S. v. Martin Linen Supply Co., a case heard in 1976, the court ruled that corporations may use the 5th Amendment to protect themselves from double jeopardy to avoid a retrial of an antitrust suit. In addition, in 1976 the court ruled that advertising was free speech in Virginia Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council. In 1977, the court allowed corporations the protection of the 4th Amendment to thwart the efforts of OSHA inspectors in Marshall v. Barlow. In 1977, the court overturned state restrictions on corporate spending on political referendums under 1st Amendment protections in First National Bank v. Bellotti ruling that money was free speech.
After this brief review, it's clear that the founders had just as much fear and loathing of big money (read corporations) as they did of big government. As the state constitutions showed, they chose to restrict corporate activities sharply. The founders certainly believed that a corporate charter was a privilege and conferred no property rights onto the owners of the corporations. In fact, many of the state constitutions granted only charters that were limited by a time duration, after which the corporation would have to be dissolved. Almost all states gave their legislatures the power to revoke a charter if the corporations failed to live within their charter or when their activities were viewed as harmful to the general welfare of the state.
Most states, through general law, further restricted the activities of corporations limiting the amount of wealth or land they could accumulate. It was liberalism is its finest hour protecting the rights of the common man against the plutocrats.
It was only through judicial activism and corruption, along with some state legislatures that eroded most of the laws governing corporations in the 19th Century. This erosion of the law paralleled the rise of a rich elite within our society and also the corporatization of America. Prior to the Civil War, most corporations consisted of railroads or banks. It was only after the Civil War that corporations began significant expansion into other businesses. This is the primary reason why so many of the early court decisions and clauses within state constitutions were specific to banks and railroads---other types of corporations were simply insignificant. [EDITOR: industrialization: the manufacture of widgets created thousands of factories and corporations]
It should be clear that the rich elite as a class didn't begin to emerge until after the Civil War, which paralleled with the court's pro-business rulings that reached a climax with the robber barons of the 1880s. By the end of the 1880s, corporations were granted the rights of personhood by the Waite court. In effect, the judicial system conferred citizenship on corporations without any of the obligations and responsibilities that go with individual citizenship. It leaves us in the precarious position of capital (money) having more rights than that of the owner of the capital.
One good example of corporations having the rights of a person without the obligations was during WWII when individuals could be drafted and forced to serve their country. Initially after the bombing of Pearl Harbor the army was overwhelmed with volunteers. However, throughout five long years, the army relied on the draft to maintain the army's strength, but the critical factor was a shortage of supplies. Moreover, the supplies and orders for munitions and armaments were slow to come. Corporations refused to produce war munitions in favor of consumer goods. In effect, corporations engaged in a sit-down strike until they had obtained outrageously beneficial terms. America faced corporations that openly violated the law, corporations that blackmailed the government with threats of an interruption of the supply of gasoline and corporations that conspired to price fixing. Finally, America faced the armies of the Third Reich supplied by products built by American corporations. No corporation ever faced charges of price fixing, war profiteering and treason with supplying the enemy with munitions. Yet more than 300 corporations did business with the Third Reich during the war.
Certainly, the record of the Waite court with its many antagonistic rulings toward the civil rights of individuals and their liberties, along with an extremely pro-business agenda spanning a period of almost 30 years should give us pause today---especially with the present Rehnquist court quietly chipping away at the Miranda ruling and other civil rights rulings. Likewise, it was the Rehnquist court that ruled that some ballots in Florida were more equal than others and need not be counted, thereby throwing the 2000 election to George W. Bush just as justices from the Waite court installed Rutherford B. Hayes as president earlier. Such outrageous rulings should call into question the confirmation procedure used in the Senate for court appointments. All too often justices are chosen for their political ideology rather than their judicial abilities.
The erosion of protections from corporations built into the various state constitutions has led to the present problems we are facing. Our government is for sale to the highest bidder. The erroneous decision of the court in 1976 equating money with free speech has left us with unequal rights. A citizen's voice is not equal to that of a multinational corporation simply because the corporation has unlimited financial resources to apply. Further, the court has allowed corporations to grow to gargantuan proportions, precisely the fear Jefferson expressed in his opposition to national charters.
Sub-Section 2
In 1996, 51 of the world's largest economies were corporations with General Motors larger than Denmark, and Wal-Mart, the twelfth corporation larger than 161 countries. The top 200 corporations in the world have sales equivalent to 28.3% of the world's GDP. The combined sales of these top 200 corporations are larger than the GDP of all but the world's nine largest countries. These top 200 corporations employ just 18.8 million people--or less than 1/3 of 1% of the world's population. The world's top five employers are General Motors, Wal-Mart, PepsiCo, Ford and Siemens.
Domestically, the top 1% of Americans owns 40% of all U.S. assets. The corporate share of income taxes has fallen from roughly 40% in the 1940s to less than 15% today. While corporate profits rose an astounding 130% from 1980 to 1995, the average family saw a net decrease in their real wage. The problem was first detailed in America: What Went Wrong? written by Barlett and Steele for the Philadelphia Inquirer in 1992 and now available in paperback.
In the abbreviated list of court rulings and acts of Congress above, the list stopped at 1987. For one, the focus of corporate regulation changed; an era of extreme conservatism gripped the nation. Carter began deregulation of a few industries to prop up a sagging economy feeling the after-effects of OPEC. In the 1980 presidential race, Reagan ran on a platform of deregulation. If Carter began limited deregulation, the Reagan administration threw open the flood gates. The last dying gasp in favor of regulation of corporations came in 1984 when the judge ordered AT&T to be broken into eight Regional Bells in an ongoing monopoly case.
Coupled with the earlier grievous court ruling of equating money as free speech and the reduction in the top tax rates for individuals and corporation, corporations were free to buy the politicians of their choice. The results have been a host of new bills enacted by Congress granting corporations more corporate welfare, fewer regulations, more power and more rights. With the top tax rates reduced to a mere 31%, corporate executives soon reaped the benefits of exorbitant salaries and benefits at the expense of the employees. Employees became expendable and a new industry was born overnight: the temporary employment firms. Meanwhile, the CEOs of corporations sought control of corporate boards, further increasing their empire and concentrating their power.
The result of the deregulation of the 1980s and 1990s is literally punctuated with dismal failures. The era is marked in the beginning by a multi-billion dollar taxpayer bailout of the savings and loan industry. For much of the 1980s, the savings and loan bailout was a black hole for taxpayers' hard earned dollars. The industry had been deregulated and had gambled on high-interest junk bonds and foreign loans. When the junk bond market collapsed along with the foreign loans the industry was devastated. Fallout from the resulting carnage lead to the Keating Five and the Michael Milken trials. Keating lobbied Congress heavily promoting deregulation of the savings and loan--but in the end Lincoln Savings and Loan went bankrupt, as did the reputation of the five congressmen most heavily involved with Keating. Milken, the junk bond king faced a 98-count indictment.
The end result of the savings and loan scandal and the junk bond scandal went far beyond the taxpayer bailout. The junk bonds were used to finance leveraged buyouts, further concentrating power in fewer hands. In addition, many investors in junk bonds found themselves empty-handed with worthless paper or, if they were lucky perhaps saw their investment reduced to $.015 (fifteen cents) for every $1 (dollar) invested. In the end, none of the perpetrators of the failed savings and loans faced serious sentencing. Milken was fined heavily and sentenced to a short prison term. His fortune was somewhat reduced, but he was still a multi-millionaire.
Evidence exists that in 1988, presidential candidate George Bush was implicated in delaying the closure of Silverado Savings and Loan until after the election, because his son Neil was on the board.10
Perhaps the most damaging aspect of the junk bond fiasco was the spawning of a mania of mergers. Even more than a decade later, mergers are continuing unabated. Just as Barlett and Steele detailed in 1992, mergers have continued. The large corporations that received tax bonanzas from the Reagan administration under the disguise that lower taxes would spur growth didn't invest their newfound wealth in research--instead they bought out smaller corporations. Moreover, with each new merger and buyout, power and wealth was concentrated. For the employees, it meant massive layoffs. Congress and the Justice Department have both been comfortably asleep-at-the-wheel, allowing corporations broken apart to re-merge together as in the case of a couple of the "Baby Bells" and Exxon and Mobil.
Another of the first industries to be deregulated was the airlines. Deregulation of the airlines has only been marginally successful, if at all. Yes, fares did come down, but at the very high price of safety. Delays are more likely than on-time departures and arrivals. Luggage is lost or damaged all too frequently. It is now commonplace to hear of another airline crash with possibly a hundred or more deaths resulting. Yet studies of airplane crashes reveal that most deaths are not the result of the impact. Rather most of the deaths are the result of excessively weak seats. On impact, the seats tear loose and the passenger is propelled forward at 120 mph. The lucky ones may indeed be those killed when they are thrown against the bulkhead. More often than not limbs or spines are shattered and unable to move they perish in the flames or from the toxic fumes. The FFA has known for years of the weak seat design. In fact, the seats in a Honda Civic or Yugo are stronger. Car seats generally are capable of standing up under the strain of 20-G forces; those on the airlines are only 9-Gs.11 Now how is that for deregulation?
However, the FAA was hobbled from the very beginning by Congress with a dual mandate, one to regulate the industry and two to promote the industry. Only after the crash of Valu Jet did congress change this dual mandate. Nor is it proper to place the blame on the FAA alone for air safety problems. The real problem lies with a Congress that creates a toothless agency to placate the public. Why does the agency need a Congressional bill to require stronger seats? A regulatory agency should be allowed to implement reasonable controls over its charges. However, time and again, Congress will create an agency as a response to a problem with little or no authority to complete its mission.
Two other examples are the EPA and OSHA, where in recent years Congress has blocked planned implementation of stronger new standards. In the case of the EPA, it was the fine particulates. In the case of OSHA, it was new standards for repetitive motion. In short, these two agencies have been used by the Republicans for political football. Nixon used both against his political enemies. The Reagan administration made a mockery of the EPA by appointing a former employee of the Coor's family, as well as that of the entire Department of Interior headed by James Watt.
The Reagan transition team in 1980 went far beyond the normal bounds of corruption. Reagan turned a blind eye toward ethics when it concerned his transition team. By far, Reagan assembled the largest transition team of any president thus far. Many had obvious conflicts of interests, nor did the requests from various members of Reagan's team stop within prescribed guidelines. Carter appointees refused to turn over lists of prospective enforcement cases to a member of the transition team (who just happened to be an independent oil producer) and his deputy (whose firm represented Standard Oil of California). At the Labor Department Reagan's deputy team leader had filled a friend of the court brief with the Supreme Court challenging the enforcement of OSHA laws. Such confrontations were visible in every department. In short, Reagan's transition team was given a license to loot on behalf of their corporate benefcators.12
Ever since the erroneous Supreme Court decision to equate money with free speech, politicians have been placed in the pocket of corporate America. Campaign finance was an issue in the 2000 elections and remains an issue in Congress despite the best efforts of George W. Bush and the leaders of the Republican Party to kill campaign finance reform. The Bush administration is rabidly pro-business as evident from his appointment of Gale Norton to head of the Interior Department. Norton was a protegee of none other than James Watt. Additionally, Bush has shown his allegiance to corporate America in the California electrical power shortage.
This leaves the American citizen as a pawn of corporate America. While the corporate media blares report after report of crime in the streets the real crime story of corporate fraud goes unreported. In 1998, the FBI estimated the annual cost of robberies and burglaries at $3.8 billion. The annual cost of corporate or white-collar fraud has been placed in the hundred billion dollar range (note the FBI does not estimate corporate or white-collar fraud). The estimates of healthcare fraud alone was placed at between $100-$400 billion dollars. Securities fraud is in the minor leagues at only $15 billion dollars.13 The two figures point out one glaring and unmistakable fact: regulation works. The securities market is tightly regulated, while healthcare field is wide-open with little effective regulation and what does exist, exists primarily on the state and local levels. The Savings and Loan scandal alone cost U.S. taxpayers between $300 to $500 billion dollars.
The FBI also reported in 1998 that 19,000 Americans were murdered. In contrast, 56,000 Americans died from job-related diseases such as black lung. No estimate is even available for the number of Americans whose lives were cut short from cancer due to environmental pollution or workplace exposure. Federal contractors routinely violate the Wagner Act and other laws, but are still allowed to continue to provide government services.
Sub-Section 3
However, Americans (and indeed all of the world's people) face and even greater threat to their freedoms. The threat comes from the attempt to take fascism world-wide through the WTO and so-called "free trade agreements". Free trade between nations is beneficial to all. However, free trade means one thing and one thing only: a reduction in or elimination of tariffs. Any trade agreement that goes beyond those boundaries is just another step towards global fascism and corporate rule.
In free countries, the laws are determined by the people or representatives of the people--they are not set by some corporate fiat. However, that is not the case with the recent trade agreements such as GATT, NAFTA, the now defeated MAI or the present negotiations on GATS. All of these so-called trade agreements contain provisions that either overwrite exiting labor and environmental laws or mandate payment to any corporation that perceives itself to be injured by public policy, the laws of a sovereign nation or both. Further, these so called "free trade treaties" set up corporate tribunals as the final arbitrator in any disputes rendering the court system and national sovereignty mute. In essence, these free trade agreement confer sovereign status onto corporations.
For instance under GATT, the United States was forced to accept shrimp imports from Thailand. The imports had been banned under U.S. law because Thailand law did not require shrimpers to use protective nets for sea turtles.
Presently, the U.S. is bound by NAFTA to begin allowing Mexican tractor-trailer rigs to enter the country unrestricted. At best, the only protection ensuring these rigs to be up to U.S. safety standards comes from state highway patrols.
However, under these so-called free trade agreements Canada and Mexico have both suffered more grievous blows. Under NAFTA, Canada was forced to pay a multimillion dollar ransom to U.S.-based Ethyl Corporation. In 1997, Ethyl sued Canada under the provisions in Chapter 11 of NAFTA. Canada had the foresight to ban the hazardous and toxic MMT gasoline additive. Ethyl claimed that such a ban on MMT constituted an expropriation of its assets in Canada and sought $250 million dollars in damages. In 1998, the Canada government under extreme pressure removed the ban on MMT and settled the suit with Ethyl for $13 million dollars.14
Mexico suffered a similar indignity in 1996. The Mexican state of San Luis Potosi refused to give U.S. based Metalclad Corporation a permit to reopen its waste disposal site. The state governor ordered the site to be closed after a geological survey showed that the site would contaminate the local water supply. The governor then went further by declaring the site part of a 600,000 acre ecological zone to protect the water supply. Metalclad sued under Chapter 11 of NAFTA, seeking $90 million in compensation. Eventually the case was settled with an award to Metalclad for $17 million dollars. Under GATS, Mexico would have faced additional trade sanctions.
Both the Canadian and Mexican cases demonstrate the awards were granted under a tribunal set up under NAFTA. The tribunal is, of course, beholding only to the multi-national corporations. Canadian or Mexican courts and laws were voided in both cases.
Incredibly, under the rules of the current talks on GATS, (General Agreement on Trade in Services) injustices such as the two cases listed above would expand. GATS could prevent Canada from expanding its Medicare program to include national drug or home care program.15 Such expansion of Canada's healthcare system could trigger suits such like the Ethyl or Metalclad suits discussed above.
GATS defines services very broadly. Under GATS, the following would be classified as services:
business services, communication services, construction services, distribution services, financial services, recreation, tourism and travel, transport services, education, health services, water supply, electricity supply, waste disposal16
Under the terms of GATS any expansion of the National Park System could trigger a lawsuit forcing the taxpayer to pay some multinational corporation millions. Likewise, any expansion of a city's public water supply or waste disposal would likewise trigger lawsuits, as would cities that chose to implement a light rail system to ease traffic congestion. Further, under the current rules of GATS, any increase in funding or expansion of additional programs in our public schools would trigger lawsuits. Under all cases, the suits would be brought before a tribunal established by GATS without regard to the U.S. court system.
Presently, even in the current slump in the U.S. economy over one trillion dollars was invested in other countries. The danger posed by the multinational corporations is immense and very real. The present trade agreements have little to do with increasing trade. In fact, the trade agreements' sole purpose is aimed at eliminating any risk of capital by including provisions requiring compensation for government actions to protect the public and enhance public policy. They are, in effect, the first steps to establishing global fascism by overwriting the laws of sovereign countries to establish a corporate-ruled world.
The proposed MAI treaty was killed and is effectively dead for now. However, the WTO is still active and MAI has now been replaced with a treaty that is just as dangerous, GATS. Calling such treaties free trade agreements is nothing more than using a feel-good euphemism keyed to generating support and cloaking the real danger hidden in these agreements. There is only one sure method of ensuring that such agreements are killed for all time, a constitutional amendment that restricts the activities of all corporations. Under our present constitution, Congress has been given the sole authority in regulating interstate commerce. Such authority could be used to require any corporation to obtain a corporate charter that would be limited by the proposed amendment found in the last chapter.
The erosion of laws governing corporations and the new rounds of trade talks have placed the people of the United States and the entire world in jeopardy of losing their freedoms to global fascism of corporate rule. Franklin Roosevelt described fascism best.
"The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic State itself. That, in its essence, is Fascism -- ownership of government by an individual, by a group or by any controlling private power."
www.spiritone.com/~gdy52150/colawbib.html
1. The Crisis of Global Capitalism, George Soros, Public Affairs, 1998, page102.
Chapter 4:
2. Corporate Power In America, Ralph Nader & Mark Green, Brossman, 1973, page 68.
3. John Marshall, Jean Edward Smith, Henry Holt & Co, 1996, page 436.
4. www.constitution.by.net/Pa/PaConst38.html
5. www.legislature.state.al.us/misc/history/constitutions/1875/1875_14.html
6 http://legisweb.state.wy.us/titles/98titles/title97.htm
7. www.ratical.com/corporations/CAconstArt12.html
8. The source for this case and all the ones following comes from the same source. http://www.endgame.org/primer-history.html
9. www.courts.state.wi.us/history/famous_cases.htm
10. www.kings.edu/twsawyer/frankly/SS1.html
11. The Buying of Congress, Charles Lewis, Avon, 1998, pages 184-198.
12. When the Pentagon was for Sale, Andy Pasztor, Scribner, 1995, pages 41-72.
13. www.tompaine.com/features/2000/05/15/
14. www.rollcall.com/
15. www.wtoaction.org/greenfield2.phtml
16. www.theglobeandmail.com, Mark MacKinnon, 2/19/01
17. www.heureka.clara.net/gaia/gats.htm
www.spiritone.com/~gdy52150/1920s.htm
Most Americans view the Roaring 1920s as a decade of speakeasies, bootleg liquor, flapper girls, and the Charleston. Without a doubt, the 1920s was the most repressive decade of the 20th Century. It was a decade marked in the beginning by the Palmer Raids of 1919 and at the end with the massacre of the Bonus Marchers in the midst of the Great Depression.
Perhaps the misunderstanding about the 1920s is because the American psyche recalls only the "apple pie" culture of repressive times. As a society, Americans fail to recall the brutal repression unleashed on the labor movement or the many race riots of the decade. America's collective view of the 1950s, another decade of repression, is much the same and consists of images of "Leave It to Beaver" and "Ozzie and Harriet". Few recall the madness of McCarthyism or images of the developing Cold War.
As a society, Americans are led to overlook great threats to our freedoms that took place during repressive times. If the Palmer Raids or McCarthyism had taken place in any country behind the Iron Curtain, Americans would have been quick to condemn the actions as massive purges of dissidents.
The 1920s held a bountiful promise of progress at WW1's end. The United States could have seized the chance to become a world power and leader. Instead, the nation retreated into itself and rejected President Wilson's League of Nations in favor of isolationism. [EDITOR: disagree; taking part in the Illuminati schemes for world war racketeering is an example of left-wing corruption we thankfully avoided]
New technologies and industries were busting down the doors. Autos were replacing the horse-and-buggy. Telephones were replacing Telegraphs. Electric lights were replacing the kerosene lamp. Air travel was now a reality. However, it was a decade that didn't live up to its promise. The decade ended in a spectacular failure of laissez-faire economics, the stock market crash of 1929. The resulting depression was so severe, it left an indelible mark on those that lived through it for the rest of their lives.
A period of repression has followed every major war this country has fought. The aftermath of the Civil War fits the pattern. McCarthyism followed WW II and coincided with the Korean War. Even with Vietnam, the phenomenon was observed, although in this case the repression was split. In one part, the repression occurred during the war with the exposure of COINTELPRO, and the other part followed in the 1980s with the coming of the Reagan administration. The infamous Palmer Raids followed the heels of World War I.
The repression that followed was directed at the perceived threats of the time and can best be summarized by the 4 prime targets of the U.S. Army Intelligence Network lead by Lt. Col. Ralph Van Deman: the Industrial Workers of the World (the IWW union), opponents of the draft, socialists and blacks. These groups were brutally repressed throughout the 1920s. The decade, in fact, is punctuated with massacres and race riots. In 1917, even before the war's end, Van Deman had already opened a file on Martin Luther King's maternal grandfather.7
Van Deman was an anti-Semite and is credited with establishing military intelligence as part of the modern U.S. Army. Most officers within the Military Intelligence Division (MID) at the time were also virulently anti-Semitic. MID officers promoted every anti-Jewish publication, including the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, as fact. It was commonly accepted within the MID that communism and Jews were one and the same. The anti-Semitic aspect of military officers extended beyond the MID and was due substantially to West Point's teaching of eugenics and anti-Semitism.
The almost universal anti-Semitism and racism of military officers allowed them to overlook the pogroms of the 1920s in Poland and other countries. Such beliefs were also a contributing cause to the passage of the 1924 bill that restricted immigration of "undesirables." Indeed, the anti-Semitism of military officers would last until well after WWII. It was a deciding reason in the failure of the United States to offer sanctuary to Jewish refugees in the late 1930s. It was also a contributing reason to the poor treatment of Jewish survivors of Nazi concentration camps.
During WWI, fear the Germans would exploit Negro unrest left Van Deman preoccupied with black churches as centers of sedition.
However, the most sinister aspect of Van Deman's network was the encroachment of the military into civilian affairs. During the 1920s, federal troops were activated several times to intercede in civilian events; for example, federal troops were used to break a Seattle strike. As late as 1947, military intelligence was still being directed at the same targets listed by Van Deman, evidenced by the inclusion of Martin Luther King, Jr. in the 111th Military Intelligence Group's files.
These post-war periods of repression are the very times our freedoms are most imperiled. Such repressive times are only a natural extension of the war, as deactivated troops return home, the former Soldiers seek work in an economy that is shifting from war to peace. Unemployment usually rises since, many of the deactivated troops have little or no peacetime skills. Additionally, after WWI, inflation ravaged the nation as wartime controls were lifted, adding to the economic woes of returning veterans.
However, the real danger comes from troops formerly engaged in intelligence. These former spies seek to ply their trade in the government or private sector. For instance, following the Civil War, many Union spies went to work in the private sector as union busters. After WWI, the newly formed American Legion was deployed in union busting, but even more sinister, went much further seeking to destroy political dissent and anyone left of center. The end of WWII ushered in the McCarthy era of wild witch-hunts for suspected communists.
There is little doubt that, after the Untied States entered the Great War, German agents were actively engaged in sabotage in the United States. The Kingsland fire of Jan 11, 1917 was traced to a German agent, Fiodore Wozniak, the "Firebug." In that one act of sabotage, 275,000 artillery shells and huge stores of TNT and other munitions valued at more than $17 million dollars were destroyed.1
Although destruction of war plants and munitions hindered the war effort, these acts paled in comparison to the economic sabotage by the corporate warlords of I.G. Farben. The cartel agreements that American corporations had with I.G. Farben preserved a stranglehold on munitions production, as well as many consumer items.
Before looking at the cartel agreements and how they hindered both wars, some brief history is required. Often, rather obscure events determine future world peace and war. Discoveries in chemistry labs have played enormous roles leading up to both world wars.
First, Germany has always been a country short of natural resources. Although it has ample supplies of coal, Germany lacks high-grade iron ore and other minerals. The soil is not particularly fertile, and Germany has traditionally been unable to feed its people without importing food. This reason alone played a dominant role in Hitler's quest for living space to the east.
The second factor that comes into play is Germany's geographical location. Its only access to the world's oceans is through the North Sea. The lord and master of the high seas, England, could easily blockade this route. Therefore, any factor that decreased Germany's dependence on imports increased its ability to wage war and to challenge England's dominance over all of Europe.
Germany's chemical industry developed in the 19th Century. English chemists were the first to discover that pigments could be produced from coal tar, but they failed to recognize the significance of the discovery. German industry was quick to capitalize on the development and soon dominated the world's pigment production. The work of German chemists on coal tar launched a new branch of chemistry, organic chemistry. Along with pigments, a host of new products came gushing forth: the first sulfa drugs, plastics and, by the advent of the Second World War, even rubber.
Along with the many useful and beneficial products that could be developed from this new branch of chemistry, a sinister side arose as well. One of the developments that had a direct impact on WWI was the Haber process of producing nitrates. Prior to Germany perfecting this process, Germany was dependent on Chile's nitrate deposits. With the Haber process, nitrates could be produced from nitrogen in the air. Germany's war machine was no longer dependent on shipments from Chile that could be blockaded by the British Navy. As war approached, an even more sinister side of the new chemistry was developed poison gas.
WWI was the first war in which technology overpowered the frontline Soldier. The chemistry labs of Germany played a pivotal role in its ability to wage war on its neighbors. These labs would play an even larger role in WWII with the development of producing both gasoline and synthetic rubber from coal.
At the center of the chemical arms production was I.G. Farben. I.G. Farben was a product of cartelization formed from six dye companies: Badische Anilin & Soda Fabrik (BASF), Farbenfabriken vorm (Bayer), Farbwerke vorm (Hoechst), Aktiengesellschaft fur Anilinfabrikaten, Leopold Cassela, and Kalle & Co. The big six were completely merged into I.G. Farben in 1916.2 In the ten years preceding WWI, I.G Farben relentlessly followed a path that enhanced Germany's ability to wage war.
When WWI broke out, I.G. Farben controlled the new worldwide chemical industry with cartel agreements and patents. Germany, particularly through I.G. Farben, aggressively sought patents in foreign countries, then refused to grant licenses to corporations in those countries. This shifted all aspects of the industry to the German homeland.
In light of recent court decisions allowing corporations to patent genes and the resulting genetically engineered food crops, it would be a worthwhile effort to study how Germany used patents to gain worldwide control over the fledgling organic chemical industry.
Sub-Section 1
Joseph Chamberlain summed up England's loss of the coal tar industry in 1883:
"It has been pointed out especially in an interesting memorial presented on behalf of the chemical industry that under the present law it would have been possible, for instance, for the German inventor of the hot blast furnace, if he had chosen to refuse a license in England, to have destroyed almost the whole iron industry of this country and to carry the business bodily over to Germany. Although that did not happen in the case of the hot blast industry, it had actually happened in the manufacture of artificial colors connected with the coal products, and the whole of that had gone to Germany because the patentees would not grant license in this country."3
Lloyd George reiterated Chamberlain's view in 1907:
"Big foreign syndicates have one very effective way of destroying British industry. They first of all apply for patents on a very considerable scale. They suggest every possible combination, for instance, in chemicals, which human ingenuity can possibly think of. These combinations the syndicates have not tried themselves. They are not in operation, say, in Germany or elsewhere, but the syndicates put them in their patents in obscure and vague terms so as to cover any possible invention that may be discovered afterward in this country."4
These quotes leave no doubt about the destructive nature of the cartel agreements and the patents sought by I.G. Farben in England. Nor is there any doubt over how such cartel agreements hindered U.S. war efforts during WWI. During the war, numerous I.G. Farben front corporations were seized under the Trading with the Enemy Act. Cartel agreements between American corporations and I.G. Farben created monopolies and spheres of influence, eliminating any competition. In effect, the cartel agreements were a second wave of robber barons. This time, however, the robber barons resided in Germany and structured the agreements to keep control over American corporations, even to the extent of limiting production of war material. In effect, the cartel agreements were nothing short of an attempt to put corporate rule ahead of government.
Recent trade agreements such as NAFTA, GATT, the failed MAI and GATS (all are proposed under the banner of free trade agreements) have placed the rights of corporations above and beyond the reach of the government. The inherent danger of allowing corporations to rule will be readily apparent in such a study. Furthermore, all these agreements contain clauses that set up tribunals as the final arbitrator in disputes, bypassing the court systems of the signatory countries which in effect allows the corporations setting on the tribunals to establish law by decree.
Even before the Nazis came to power, the cartel agreements formed a vital part of Germany's plan to wage war and extract revenge for the Treaty of Versailles. The willingness of corporate America's leaders to reestablish cartel agreements with I.G. Farben during the 1920s, and their subsequent support for fascist groups in the 1930s, forms the base of fascism in the United States.
Although, there were literally dozens of companies seized during WWI for trading with the enemy, the focus is not on those seized. Rather, the focus is on the ease and speed with which I.G Farben was able to reform its cartels, aided by the laissez faire economic policies of Harding, Coolidge and Hoover.
During the war, corporations reaped fat profits. With the lifting of wartime controls in 1919, business leaders craved a chance to get back to normal. Prices had been frozen during the war and before the war, Teddy Roosevelt had followed a policy of breaking up monopolies. The only threat to reestablishing their monopolies and domination of the economy came from the new labor movement and communism. In the aftermath of the Red Scare of 1919, the pro-business candidate, Warren Harding, was elected president, setting the stage for the rebuilding of the cartels.
WW I should have taught the Allied nations that Germany used international cartels as its spearhead of aggression. The German military mind had long understood the concept of total war. The father of modern German militarism, Karl von Clausewitz, best summarized the concept:
"War is no independent thing, the main lineaments of all strategic plans are of a political nature, the more so the more they include the totality of War and State. Disarm your enemy in peace by diplomacy and trade if you would conquer him more readily on the field of battle."5
This philosophy of war and peace became a cornerstone of Germany's political and economic interactions with other nations. The history of I.G. Farben in the twentieth century is one of support for German military adventurism. It consistently advanced German military plans and subordinated its own financial interests to German nationalistic aims.
With the ink hardly dry on the armistice agreement, the New York Times received a dispatch from its Berlin correspondent on December 1, 1919:
"The firms composing the German dye trust have decided to increase their capital to the extent without parallel, I believe, in the history of German industry. The trust which consists of three great and four minor concerns in the industry, valued at, roughly, 15,000,000,000 marks, is extending for two reasons: It is determined to reassert German supremacy in the dye industry; in the second place, there is the question of nitrate, so important for the agricultural life in the country.
The trust is aiming at making the fatherland independent of foreign supplies and to increase production so it will be able to export large quantities."6
The first World War pointed out deficiencies in Germany's armor. I.G. Farben's activities in the inter-war period must be understood to understand how U.S. corporations willingly hampered the war effort in the 1940s. From 1919 onward, I.G. Farben pursued a path of reestablishing its dominance. I.G. Farben continued to use the same methods it had used successfully in the first war as well as newer forms of the cartel. Several I.G. Farben developments in the inter-war period3/4 such as Buna rubber, the production of gasoline from coal, as well as aluminum and tungsten carbide production3/4 would figure prominently in WWII.
Sub-Section 2
The mind-set of I.G. Farben, and its use of patents and cartels to establish a German empire, is best illustrated with the example of Bayer 205. Bayer 205, or Germanin, was announced in 1920 as a cure for sleeping sickness. Through indirect channels, I.G. Farben made an offer to the British government: to exchange the secret of Germanin for the return of German colonies in Africa lost in WWI. The British government refused the exchange. However, a British medical journal in 1922 preserved the resourcefulness of I.G. Farben as follows:
"A curious illustration of German desire, not unnatural in itself, to regain the tropical colonies lost by the folly of the rulers of the German Empire, is afforded by a discussion which took place at a meeting of the German Association of Tropical Medicine at Hamburg. The Times correspondent in Hamburg reports that one of the speakers said that Bayer 205 is the key to tropical Africa, and consequently the key to all the colonies. The German government must, therefore, be required to safeguard this discovery for Germany. Its value is such that any privilege of a share in it granted to other nations must be made conditional upon the restoration to Germany of her colonial empire."7
The intent of I.G. Farben and Germany could hardly be masked by such a report. An even more ominous warning appeared in 1925:
"In open violation of the Treaty of Versailles the Germans shipped munitions to the Argentines. Rottweil (I.G's wholly owned subsidiary) still makes and sells excellent military powders, and German factories for munitions have been built or openly offered to build in Spain, Argentina, Mexico, etc."8
Article 170 of the treaty specifically forbade German export or import of armaments or munitions. Both the British and American state departments were aware of the violation. British Imperial Chemical Industries refrained from lodging any protest because it was locked into a cartel agreement with I.G. Farben. America, locked-in the grip of isolationism, simply ignored the violation.
In 1926, the German army formed the Economic High Command. Robert Strausz-Hupe summed up its express purpose as follows:
"Studying the deficiencies of German economy and laying plans for transforming it into Wehrwirt-schaft. Rapid conquests alone could provide new resources before Germany's reserves, accumulated by barter, ruthless rationing, and synthetic chemistry, had been exhausted in the initial war effort.
These new resources could then be poured into the war machine, rolling on to ever larger territorial conquests, and as long as it kept on rolling, the economy of greater space need never fear a crisis."9
I.G. Farben had direct and indirect communication channels with the Economic High Command. I.G. Farben policies were adjusted to accommodate the High Command's plans. In 1932, Colonel Taylor of du Pont reported:
"One of the motives back of the French proposal, that all countries should establish a conscription, is to upset the present German system of handling their Reichswehr. The Reichswehr is limited to 100,000 men of 12 year enlistment, and it would appear reasonable to suppose that there should be at present a number of soldiers around the age of 33 or 34; the fact is that when one meets a soldier of the Reichswehr he is a young man in the early twenties, and it is pretty well accepted that there are several men available under the same name and hence training much larger number of men than permitted."10
During the 1920's there were more than a hundred secret treason trials in Germany of journalists and others who revealed the truth. Quoting Dr. H.C. Englebrecht and F.C. Hanighen:
"It would seem then that despite the Versailles treaty that Germany is again a manufacturer and exporter of arms. This interference is confirmed by various incidents from the past ten years. There was the Bullerjahn case of 1925. On December 11, 1925 Walter Bullerjahn was sentenced to 15 years in prison for treason. The trial was held in secret and the public was excluded. Both the crime with which the condemned was charged and the name of the accuser were kept deep and dark secrets. After years of agitation by Dr. Paul Levi and the League for Human Rights, the facts were finally disclosed. The accuser was Paul von Gontard, general director of the Berlin-Karlsruhe Industriewerke, the same man who used the French press in 1907 in order to increase his machine gun business. Gontard had been establishing secret arsenals, contrary to treaty provisions, and this fact was discovered by the Allies. Gontard disliked Bullerjahn and had serious disagreements with him. In order to get rid of him he charged him with revealing to the Allies the fact that Gontard was secretly arming Germany. This was termed treason by the court and Bullerjahn was condemned, although not a shred of evidence was ever produced to show his connection with the Allies. The exposure of the facts in the case finally brought the release of Bullerjahn."
A little later Carl von Ossietzky, the courageous editor of the Weltbuehme, was convicted by a German court of treason because he had revealed military secrets in his journal. The secrets he had published were closely related to the secret rearming of Germany contrary to treaty provisions.
There is also some evidence that Germany is importing arms and munitions from other countries. In a confidential report of the exports of Skoda for 1930 and 1931, classified by countries, Germany appears as importer of comparatively large amounts of rifles, portable firearms, aero engines, nitrocellulose, dynamite and other explosives."11
The previous quotes focused on one simple fact that has been blurred by time: Hitler had the support of the ruling class as early as 1923. Hitler's entry into politics was the result of his commanding officer's order to attend a meeting of what evolved into the Nazi party.
Hitler, in fact, was found guilty of a far more serious crime, armed rebellion, but received a much lighter sentence than Bullerjahn. Hitler served less than two years in prison. Nor was Hitler's imprisonment particularly harsh. A more fitting description of his prison accommodations would be that of a hotel with room service. No amount of propaganda can cover up the difference in fate of Hitler and Bullerjahn. Without the support of the elite in Germany, Hitler would have suffered the same fate as Bullerjahn.
At the time of the Beer Hall Putsch, the Nazis were only a minor party. In fact, the reason the putsch failed was because Hitler lacked the popular support he had counted on. There were hundreds of trials for treason in which the defendants received harsh sentences. None were released from prison early without the special assistance of outside world opinion. Few people outside Germany had ever heard of Hitler in 1923.
In a memo dated March 22, 1932 a full year before Hitler assumed power the files of J.K. Jenny, of du Pont's Foreign Relations Department, reveals that I.G. and other German industrialists financed Hitler:
"It is a matter of common gossip in Germany that I.G. is financing Hitler. Other German firms who are also supposed to be doing so are Krupp and Thiessen. How much truth there is in the gossip we are unable to state, but there seems to be no doubt whatever that Dr. Schmitz (director-general of I.G.) is at least a large contributor to the Nazi Party."12
The previous series of quotes clearly establishes the complacency of the three American administrations of the 1920s towards German violations of the Treaty of Versailles.
The quotes also establish the ever-increasing role of I.G. Farben as an agent of the German government, culminating with I.G. Farben's support of the Nazis. Further, the quotes leave no doubt that the Republican administrations of the 1920s were aware of the violations, as well as the intent of I.G. Farben to reestablish its supremacy.
Isolationist policies of the 1920s Republican administrations were clearly a dismal failure that provided a fertile environment for rebuilding Germany's war machine. I.G. Farben was a supporter of the Nazis at least a full year before Hitler seized power. One can only speculate of when I.G. Farben began to support Hitler. Moreover, I.G. Farben had a long history of supporting German nationalism. Perhaps the most alarming feature of the quotes is I.G. Farben's increasing boldness and aggressiveness in violating the treaty. By the mid-1920s there were clear signs that Germany was preparing for another war.
Even more grievously than the complacency towards the violations of the Treaty of Versailles was the complacency of Republicans to the rebuilding of I.G. Farben's domestic cartels. To grasp the full extent of this, a brief look at the economic environment following WWI is needed.
The war's end saw a U.S. pullback into Fortress America, and the imposition of a strict right-wing isolationist policy, despite the best efforts of an ailing President Wilson to bring the United States into the League of Nations. The United States had the opportunity to seize a leadership role in the world, but instead retreated.
Compared to the European countries, the war for the United States was short, and as a result the United States didn't suffer the staggering number of causalities that the European countries did. The resulting isolationism was far too widespread to have been caused solely by war losses. Although, it went hand-in-hand with the policies of the extreme nativist groups, the resulting isolationism went far beyond fringe groups. It would be more fitting to describe it as mass psychosis. This was as much a product of nativism as it was a product of media manipulation by corporate America.
From 1900 until the end of the war in 1918, big business took several blows. First and foremost during this time was the trust-busting administration of Teddy Roosevelt. Second, price controls passed during the war restricted corporate profits. Senate investigations into war profiteering would extend into the 1930s. Finally, unionism was perceived as a threat by big business, and largely portrayed as either communism or the product of dirty foreigners.
To the business leaders of the time, getting back to normal meant nothing more than getting back to the days of robber barons, trusts, and cartels free from government intrusion and unionism. Corporate America was seeking the laissez faire economics of the three 1920s Republican administrations.
The cartel agreements with I.G. Farben were anti-competitive, and used to establish monopolies. In essence, anti-competitive agreements were used to increase profits of larger firms at the expense of smaller firms and consumers. Such agreements were the antithesis of Teddy Roosevelt's trust-busting days and a free enterprise system.
However, to the business leaders of the 1920s, "competition" was a foul word. Competition had to be avoided as much as unionism. In the view of leading industrialists of the time, competition was destructive. Thus the empire builders of the 1920s were eager to sign such agreements, and the policies of successive Republican administrations willingly turned a blind eye towards anti-competitive practices.
www.spiritone.com/~gdy52150/1920sp2.html
The full extent of I.G. Farben's disruption of the war effort during the First World War can be understood by examining the number of patents seized during the war. After U.S. entry into the war, the Alien Property Custodian (APC) was established. The APC seized a total of 12,300 patents 5,000 of which covered chemicals, pharmaceuticals and munitions.
Without a doubt, the most crucial problem facing the United States during WW1 was the U.S. dependence on Chile for nitrates. Nitrates are essential for manufacturing TNT, picric acid and other explosives. The dependence on a limited supply of Chilean nitrates was detailed in the 1915 annual report of the Chief of Ordnance. Not only were the shipments vulnerable to German submarine attacks, but many of the Chilean companies were controlled by German interests.
The Germans had eliminated their dependence on Chilean nitrates. With the development of the Haber process, nitrates could be made from atmospheric nitrogen, and by 1913 Germany had a 10,000-ton capacity plant at Oppau. In 1916, Congress appropriated money for the construction of four large synthetic nitrate plants. At the time, there were 250 patents on synthetic nitrogen, all German owned. These patents became subject to license under wartime legislation. A nitrate plant was constructed at Sheffield, Alabama, costing $13 million dollars. This plant had an annual projected capacity of 9,000 tons of ammonia and 14,000 tons of nitric acid. The plant proved useless, because the German patents did not contain the composition and preparation of the catalyst.13
The importance of nitrate production during WW1 is comparable to the importance of synthetic rubber production in the Second World War. In both cases, the Germans controlled the process through patents and cartel agreements.
Perhaps one of the more illuminating cases of how I.G. Farben hindered the war effort is the case of Dr. Hugo Schweitzer. Schweitzer was an American citizen and head of the Bayer Company. He also became head of German espionage in America and was known in Berlin as No. 963,192,637. Schweitzer was interned after America's entry into the war, but was able to conduct a highly effective industrial espionage campaign before that. The words of his superior, Dr. Albert, sums up Schweitzer's efforts best:
"The breadth of high-mindedness with which you at that time immediately entered into the plan has borne fruit as follows: One and a half million pounds of carbolic acid have been kept from the Allies. Out of this one and a half million pounds of carbolic acid, four and one-half million pounds of picric acid can be produced. This tremendous quantity of explosive stuffs has been withheld from the Allies by your contract. In order to give one an idea of this enormous quantity the following figures are of interest:
Four million five hundred thousand pounds equals 2,250 tons of explosives. A railroad freight car is loaded with 20 tons of explosives. The 2,250 tons would, therefore, fill 112 railway cars. A freight train with explosives consist chiefly of 40 freight cars, so that 4,500,00 pounds of explosives would fill three railroad trains with 40 cars each.
Of still greater and more beneficial effect is the support which you have afforded to the purchase of bromine. We have a well-founded hope that, with the exclusion of perhaps small quantities, we shall be in a position to buy up the total production of the country. Bromine, together with chloral, is used in making nitric gases, which are of such great importance in trench warfare. Without bromine these nitric gases are of slight effect; in connection with bromine, they are of terrible effect. Bromine is only produced in the United States and Germany. While therefore, the material is on hand in satisfactory quantities for the Germans, the Allies are entirely dependent upon importation from America." 14
Schweitzer's work not only shows how I.G. Farben was an integral part of the German war machine, but also illustrates that German espionage was centered around German immigrants. This doesn't imply that all German immigrants were traitors, as the vast majority were citizens loyal to their adopted country. However, during both wars, German espionage relied heavily on German immigrants. As an example, the German spies apprehended landing on Long Island during WW II had all previously lived in the United States. As the quote above shows, immigrants who chose to remain loyal to their fatherland had a considerable impact hindering the war effort.
Upon Schweitzer's death, government agents searching his apartment found an unpublished article entitled "The Chemist War." In this document, Schweitzer detailed Germany's plan for self-sufficiency and foretells the importance of its scientific advances for the next war. These excerpts from the article shows that Schweitzer was fully aware of the importance of Germany's scientific advances to German empire building.
"Next to steel and iron, aluminum and magnesium play a prominent part as substitutes for copper. It has been found that an aluminum-magnesium alloy possesses great advantage over the latter as an electrical conductor. Magnesium is said to be useful for many purposes for which aluminum is being employed today. This is a very important discovery, because Germany has enormous supplies of magnesium chloride, a by-product of the potash industry, which has been worthless up to now.
That this new scientific achievement will prove of momentous importance appears from the fact that the great chemical works which supply the world with dyestuffs, synthetic remedies, photographic developments, artificial perfume, etc., have entered the field and have become important factors in the artificial fertilizer industry of Germany. The peace negotiations will undoubtedly culminate in the conclusion of commercial treaties between nations.
"What enormous power will be exercised by the nation when possessing such universal fertilizer and practically world-wide monopoly of potash slats will have something to sell that every farmer in the civilized world absolutely requires." 15
Once again, the close association of I.G. Farben with Germany's war machine is apparent, along with the intention of I.G. Farben officials to use Germany's monopoly of the emerging organic chemistry field for world domination. Shortages during the first war created by various cartel agreements involved other companies besides I.G Farben . Zeiss and its American partner, Bausch and Lomb, controlled production of military optics through a cartel agreement. German firms owned by Krupp controlled production of ordnance in many cases.
Before U.S. entry into the First World War, American aircraft production for the Allies was held up by the practices of Bosch. It was not until the United States entered the war that any action could be taken against Bosch. The same tactics were common before the United States entered WWII.
Domestically, cartel agreements created acute shortages in the medical field. Prior to the war, more than eighty percent of surgical instruments were imported from Germany. Additionally, many medicines were under complete German control, particularly salvarsan, luminal and Novocain. Salvarsan was used at the time to treat syphilis, and luminal was used to prevent epileptic seizures. There were no replacements for these drugs and patients went untreated. The shortage of Novocain forced American surgeons to revert to operating without anesthesia.
No better summation of the dangers cartel agreements posed to the United States exists than the State of the Union address by President Wilson on May 20, 1919:
"Nevertheless, there are parts of our tariff system which need prompt attention. The experiences of the war have made it plain in some cases that too great a reliance on foreign supply is dangerous, and that in determining certain parts of our tariff policy domestic considerations must be borne in mind which are political as well as economic.
Among the industries to which special consideration should be given is that of the manufacture of dyestuffs and related chemicals. Our complete dependence upon German supplies before the war made the interruption of trade a cause of exceptional economic disturbance. The close relation between the manufacture of dyestuff on the one hand and of explosives and poisonous gases on the other, moreover, has given the industry an exceptional significance and value.
Although, the United States will gladly and unhesitatingly join in a program of international disarmament, it will nevertheless, be a policy of obvious prudence to make certain of the successful maintenance of many strong and well equipped chemical plants. German chemical industry, with which we will be brought into competition, was and may well be again a thoroughly knit monopoly, capable of exercising a competition of a peculiarly insidious and dangerous kind." 19
It is obvious from this quote that the danger posed by cartels and their monopoly agreements was well-known at the highest levels of government. The most stunning aspect of the aftermath of WWI was the speed at which I.G. Farben reestablished its cartel agreements. These re-establishments could only have occurred with the full cooperation of Republican administrations and the leaders of corporate America.
Even during the peace conference, there were those in this country whose actions were fraudulent, if not treasonous. Throughout the war, lawyer John Foster Dulles sought to protect the assets of the Kaiser from seizure by the Alien Property Custodian Act. Dulles sought to derail the peace conference by looking for bribes and misdirecting clients. As a member of the post war U.S. War Trade Board, Dulles had good information for sale. He was well aware that German bribes went all the way to the Harding administration's crooked Attorney General, Harry Daugherty. In a later corruption trial, Daugherty's defense counsel pointed out there was a bigger crook behind the bribery scandal, John Foster Dulles:
"[Dulles] who strutted about the Peace Conference promoting himself as (Secretary of State) Lansing's nephew while carrying a bag3/4 looking for a bribe3/4 misdirecting his clients and comporting himself as a man who should be disbarred."20
The importance of the quote cannot be underestimated. It clearly establishes a right-wing element at the peace conference who was willing to sabotage the interest of the American people for personal, private gain. Dulles continued to work his mischief in the corrupt Harding administration and had access to its highest levels of power. Later, as WWII approached, he and his brother Allen helped conceal Nazi ownership of, and involvement in, American corporations from the U.S. government.
Daugherty was not the only Harding administration member seeking to form alliances and cartel agreements with I.G. Farben. Prior to becoming Secretary of the Treasury, Andrew Mellon controlled interests such as Alcoa, and formed several cartel agreements with I.G. Farben. Mellon's support of fascism went further than just cartel agreements with German firms. Mellon was a supporter of several pro-fascist groups in the 1930s, and part of the fascist plot against FDR in 1934.
One must keep in mind the links between top Republican administration officials of the 1920s if one is to understand the roots of American fascism. Mellon and Daugherty were not the only officials sympathetic toward I.G. Farben and Germany. There were many more, some of whom became Nazi supporters in the 1930s.
In addition to supporters within the government, I.G. Farben found a multitude of support on Wall Street. Many from Wall Street would later rise to high positions within the government, particularly in the OSS during the war, and as economic advisors during the post-war denazification period.
By the end of the first war, it was quite obvious as to all how dangerous cartel agreements with I.G. Farben were and how such agreements had hindered the U.S. war effort. These agreements were anti-competitive and a violation of trust and monopoly laws. They also violated numerous sections of the Alien Property Custodian Act. However, during the Harding administration, individuals openly sympathetic to I.G. Farben and German interests headed the two cabinet positions charged with enforcing these laws, the Departments of Justice and the Treasury. Mellon was Secretary of the Treasury throughout the Harding and Coolidge administrations, and most of the Hoover administration.
Holding his position throughout the 1920s, Mellon was able to quash almost all investigations into reforming cartels. Thus, by the end of the 1920s, I.G. Farben had regained control over all its assets seized by the Alien Property Custodian Act. In fact, the Mellon-owned Alcoa Corporation signed a cartel agreement with I.G. Farben while Mellon was still in the government.
The full ramifications of actions by top 1920s Republican administration officials, and the resulting hindrance of WWII, is immeasurable. Because of cartel agreements signed in the 1920s, the supply of many vital materials was hindered, causing shortages and production delays of munitions during WWII. Particularly damaging was a shortage of aluminum due to the cartel agreement entered into by Alcoa. Only recently has information became available that sheds light on how damaging agreements signed in the 1920s were to the war effort in the 1940s as the quote from a recent article on Newsweek.com shows below.
The fresh look at wartime culpability may extend to other American icons. In 1940 one of the nation's most prestigious law firms, Sullivan & Cromwell, joined together with the Wallenberg family of Sweden--famed for producing Raoul, a Holocaust martyr who saved Jews in Budapest--to represent Nazi German interests, says Abe Weissbrodt, a former Treasury Department lawyer who prosecuted the case in 1946. The scam? Sullivan & Cromwell drafted a voting trust agreement making the Wallenbergs' Enskilda Bank a dummy owner of the U.S. subsidiary of Bosch, a German engine-parts maker, so the Nazis could retain control. The papers were drawn up by John Foster Dulles, a Germanophile who later became secretary of State and whose name today graces Washington's international airport. (The scheme worked during the war, but in 1948 Bosch was finally auctioned to a U.S. buyer.) The record is compelling in terms of warranting questions about Dulles's motives and his own allegiances," says historian Masurovsky. "One might say about him what Treasury said about Chase and J.P. Morgan, that they had allegiance to their own corporate interests and not to their country."112
Due to the prominence of Sullivan & Cromwell in aiding the Nazis a brief look at the background of the firm and the role the Dulles brothers played in it is needed. The firm was initially established by Algernon Sullivan in New York following the economic panic of 1857. The economic panic had bankrupted his practice in Indiana. The young Sullivan had just married a descendent of George Washington from Virginia. Before the outbreak of the Civil War, Sullivan relied on and built his firm on his wife's southern contacts. These southern connections of Sullivan and Cromwell also play an important role in the last two decades of the 20th Century in moving industry from the Rust Belt to the South. Moreover, they play a particularly important role in the financial shenanigans of the Bush family.
With the advent of the Civil War, Sullivan once again saw his practice virtually destroyed. In June 1861, the confederate warship, Savannah disguised itself as a northern vessel in an effort to capture the USS Perry. However, the Perry captured the Savannah and delivered the crew to New York. Because the United States did not recognize the Confederacy as a nation, the prisoners were treated like pirates who if convicted of piracy, would have been hanged. Sullivan took it upon himself to defend the prisoners, arguing that they were prisoners of war. Against all odds, Sullivan won the case.77
In 1870, Sullivan went back to private practice in the firm of Sullivan, Kobbe and Fowler. Here Sullivan met Cromwell, who was employed as a bookkeeper. Recognizing Cromwell's talents Sullivan offered to send Cromwell to Columbia's Law School. Cromwell accepted the offer and after Kobbe and Flower left, Sullivan formed Sullivan and Cromwell. The firm soon flourished. After the death of Sullivan, Cromwell hired William Curtis as a partner and began focusing the firm on business law.
The year after Sullivan's death, Cromwell had Curtis, a New Jersey resident, work behind the scenes to change New Jersey's laws of incorporation. Cromwell's package of changes in the incorporation gave much more to the corporations than to the state and lowered incorporation fees and taxes. Additionally, it prevented shareholders from inspecting a corporation's books and interfering in corporate management. Most importantly though, Cromwell's package allowed corporations to hold shares of other corporations. It was a package designed to sidestep the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890.78 In essence, Cromwell's package was a wholesale assault on the laws that held corporations in check. Only the disastrous Supreme Court ruling giving corporations the rights of a person was more important in the creation of the corporate state.
The first two companies to take advantage of the changes in New Jersey corporate law were Sullivan & Cromwell clients, the Southern Cotton Oil Company and the North America Company. The way a firm manipulates and follows the law says a lot about the firm's honesty and integrity. The way Sullivan and Cromwell handled the 1889 Louisiana Supreme Court decision outlawing the American Cotton Trust exposes how Sullivan & Cromwell viewed the law 3/4 as just a tool to be manipulated for the benefit of the wealthy. The Louisiana Court had ruled the American Cotton Trust to be an illegal association, guilty of usurping, intruding into and unlawfully holding and exercising the franchise and privilege of a corporate without being duly incorporated.79
Cromwell went to Louisiana and hired the best local lawyers to argue the appeal, who assured him they could win. Cromwell then toured the state urging members of the trusts to sell their shares to the Rhode Island Company. The Rhode Island Company was exactly like the American Cotton Trust but incorporated in Rhode Island--which tolerated trusts. The day the appeal was to be heard, Cromwell walked into court and informed the court that the company had been dissolved. Local officials were outraged at Cromwell's action and threatened to jail him. Cromwell wisely left town that afternoon. Cromwell then had Curtis do the same thing in Texas for the local cotton oil trust.
In 1901, J. P. Morgan used Sullivan & Cromwell to organize U.S. Steel, the first American corporation with more than one billion dollars capitalized. Previously, Sullivan & Cromwell had organized National Tube Company for Morgan. In 1906, Harriman sought help from Sullivan & Cromwell in gaining control over the Illinois Central Railroad. The president of Illinois Central realized the value of the north-south route of his railroad in adding to Harriman's holdings of major east-west routes and had gave the governor of Illinois a seat on the board and organized small shareholders against a Harriman takeover. In the mounting proxy fight, Cromwell forged alliances with two board members, leaving Cromwell short one vote short for a board majority. He then offered another board member the job of president of the company--if he would help oust the current president. In the vote of proxies, Cromwell shouted from the floor and demanded that the current president cast his votes in favor of the Harriman takeover. In news that made the front page of The New York Times, Cromwell made a spectacle of the meeting after being attacked by the small shareholders against the takeover. After the meeting, Cromwell announced that there would be a board meeting in November to elect officers of the railroad and that anyone could draw his own conclusions. Cromwell and Harriman nursed their wounds for three weeks. The board meeting was set in New York on election day to deliberately deter the governor of Illinois from attending. The governor reluctantly attended the meeting to no avail; Cromwell and Harriman controlled the board. Sullivan and Cromwell worked against the majority of small holders manipulating the system to the benefit of one of the most notorious robber barons.80
Sullivan & Cromwell was instrumental in helping to manipulate utility owners by placing rising profits in holding companies that, by the 1920s, had given the control of three-fourths of the nation's electric business to just ten companies. For the firm's client, Union Electric, Sullivan and Cromwell created more than 1000 subsidiaries. The subsidiaries were in turn controlled by one or two individuals. Instead of issuing common stock, the subsidiaries issued only bonds and preferred stock that didn't carry any voting rights.81
Using the tricks developed for the utilities, Sullivan & Cromwell applied them to the National Diary Products Company. National Dairy had acquired a string of regional diaries across the country, and in 1930 acquired Kraft-Phoenix Cheese Company. Through the manipulative efforts of Sullivan and Cromwell, a localized industry was transformed into the multi-national conglomerate known as Kraft.
By 1900, Sullivan & Cromwell had emerged as the law firm of the robber barons. In the examples already given, it is clear Cromwell was willing to use unethical means to achieve victory for any client that could afford his fees. Additionally, Cromwell worked behind the scenes to weaken corporate laws. It was at this time, Cromwell developed an interest in the Panama Canal. It was also around this time, in 1911 that Dulles' grandfather, John Watson Foster, a former Secretary of State, urged Cromwell to hire his grandson. The elder Foster had known both founding partners and had clerked for Sullivan when he was in Ohio. Cromwell complied with Foster's request and hired John Foster Dulles.
By writing a pamphlet urging that American ships passing through the canal should have free passage, the young Dulles attracted the attention of Cromwell. The firm was impressed with his contacts. Sullivan and Cromwell was Panama's fiscal agent at the time.
WWI broke out during John Foster Dulles' third year at Sullivan & Cromwell. To take advantage of the war, Dulles volunteered to travel to Europe to sell risk insurance for American Cotton Oil Company's European shipments.
In 1915, Dulles' uncle, Robert Lansing, was appointed Secretary of State. Lansing recruited his nephew to go to Nicaragua, Costa Rica and Panama on the pretext of company business, but in reality to sound out the Latin Americans on aiding the U.S. war effort. Costa Rica was led by the vicious dictator Federico Tinoco. Dulles advised Washington to support the dictator because he was anti-German. Dulles also encouraged the Nicaraguan dictator Emianiano Camorro to issue a proclamation suspending diplomatic relations with Germany. In Panama, Dulles offered to waive the tax on Panama's annual canal fee as long as the country would declare war on Germany.
With his success in Central America, Dulles was commissioned as a captain for a position in military intelligence working for the war trade board. While on the trade board, Dulles recommended installing a new leader in Cuba and voiding the recent election. Dulles' concern was not for the welfare of the citizens of Cuba, but for the thirteen Sullivan & Cromwell clients that held huge sugar interest there. President Wilson refused to unseat the current government of Cuba but did send 1,600 marines to protect American sugar interests.
During the war, Cromwell had lived in Paris. John Foster Dulles' dealings during the peace negotiations cause him to rise in stature in the eyes of Cromwell. Cromwell was impressed with Dulles' work on the behalf of Germany. While in Europe after the war, Dulles met with the Merton brothers in Frankfurt. The Mertons need copper for their Metallgesellschaft business. Dulles arranged a large loan through Goldman Sachs for the Mertons to import American copper. It was this deal that lead to charges against Attornery General Harry Daugherty. Dulles was forced to testify at the trial. He could plead innocent because Goldman Sachs backed out of the deal.
However, the real story of treason by the Dulles brothers (John Foster and Allen) and Sullivan and Cromwell begins with the ending of the First World War. Cromwell would remain in Paris and John Foster Dulles, while not formally in charge of the New York office, would be the force to be reckoned with in New York. In 1926, Allen Dulles resigned his position with the State Department and went into private practice at Sullivan & Chromwell law firm where his brother John Foster also worked. Several Wall Street firms figured prominently in guiding investments into Germany, in the 1920s as well as in the 1930s. However, almost all deals would involve the services of Sullivan and Cromwell.
Coinciding with the Dawes Plan, John Foster Dulles arranged a large loan for Krupp. To obtain the loan Dulles had called Leland Harrison, Assistant Secretary of State to soft-pedal the item in the news. Harrison was infuriated because the department had issued a circular asking to see foreign loans before American funds were exported. Dulles knew, however, that Harrison had no authority to stop the loan. Dulles wanted to avoid the State Department's scrutiny as to whether German factories were producing military hardware. To avoid any scrutiny, Dulles chose a Saturday to call Harrison. Sullivan and Cromwell, at Dulles behest accepted the assurances of Krupp that all military hardware had been destroyed.
[EDITOR: Notice that Allen Dulles was "away" from his office during the weekend the Bay of Pigs invasion was launched in 1961]
The Krupp loan opened a new era at Sullivan & Cromwell. It was the start of a massive investment in Germany by U.S. banks. Banks competed with each other for the services of the firm in arranging German loans. Within a year America, had lent Germany $150 million dollars. Such massive lending worried both German and United States governments. The State Department privately warned bankers and lawyers of the growing indebtedness of Germany. Dulles actively promoted the loans, and Sullivan & Cromwell supervised an endless stream of German bonds. Many of the prospectuses contained errors and had never been proofread due to the frantic pace; others were deliberately deceptive. A Bavarian bond prospectus began "Bavaria has an excellent credit history"; however, Bavaria had defaulted on its debt the year before.82 Almost 70% of the money flowing into Germany during the 1930s came from U.S. investors.
Dulles derived much of his profits and his clients' profits from investments in Nazi Germany. In the 1930s Dulles set about creating an incredible interlocking financial network between Nazi corporations, American Oil and Saudi Arabia. Here Allen had help from his brother Foster. Perhaps the best-known deal arranged by Dulles was between I.G. Farben and Standard Oil of New Jersey. What is generally not known Farben was the second largest shareholder in standard Oil of New Jersey, second to only John D. Rockefeller himself.113 Another Rockefeller-controlled corporation that Dulles worked to protect was the Rockefeller corporation United Fruit, both United Fruit and Standard Oil of New Jersey continued to trade with the Nazis after the out break of war.
In the 1930s, Dulles arranged for the wealthy Czech family, the Petscheks, to sell their interest in Silesian Coal to George Mernane. Mernane was used merely to hide the Petscheks' interest. Dulles then sold the shares to his friend Schacht, the Nazi economic minister. After the sale, Dulles became director of Consolidated Silesian Steel Company. Its sole asset was a one-third interest in Upper Silesian Coal and Steel Company. The remainder of the shares were controlled by Fredrich Flick.83 This was one of the companies seized from Prescott Bush for trading with the enemy.
Allen Dulles' role at Sullivan & Cromwell soon developed into that of a fixer. The Mellons hired him to convince the Colombian government not to confiscate its investments in Colombian's rich oil and mineral fields. He did so by rigging the 1932 Colombian presidential election.
By 1934, John Foster Dulles was publicly supporting Nazi philosophy. In 1935, he wrote a long article for the Atlantic Monthly entitled "The Road to Peace." He excused Germany's secret rearmament as an action to take back their freedom. Knowing what he did about Inco and Germany's munitions industry, Dulles mislead the readers in asserting Germany's, Italy's, and Japan's desires for peace. Later in the 1930s, Dulles helped organize the American First group. A month before Pearl Harbor, he donated $500 to the group. Later, he would claim no association with the group.84 Dulles continued his support of the Nazi line right up to the time Germany invaded Poland. Dulles' excuse for the Poland invasion was much like blaming the victim for the crime.
After the bombing of Pearl Harbor, John Foster Dulles wrote the company policy for Sullivan & Cromwell on the rehiring of those who had join the army to fight. This policy refused to guarantee that employees could return to their former positions. Nonetheless, more than half of the firm enlisted including four partners and thirty-five associates. Many of the enlistees were assigned top-level positions in the OSS. In an act of poetic justice, Dulles' policy to refuse to guarantee the enlistees' jobs upon their return from service came back to haunt him in his 1950 race for the Senate and figured prominently in his defeat.85
With the outbreak of WWII, John Foster Dulles' image was severely tarnished by his praise of Nazi Germany. Throughout the war, he stayed home and used sanctimonious pronouncements to rebuild his image. However, he did not give up his secret Nazi ties.
The most significant action of Dulles took during the war crippled America's war effort severely. The military depended upon diesel motors for trucks, tanks, submarines, ships, and aircraft. There was no substitute for the direct fuel injection in diesel engines. While the United States plotted to bomb Nazi diesel plants in Germany, the legal maneuvers of John Foster prevented America from manufacturing more efficient diesel engines at home.
In 1934, Dulles handled the legal end and George Murnane handled the operational end. Together they fabricated a deal in which Bosch sold its international interests to the Mendelssohm company of Amsterdam with a right to repurchase them at a later date. In 1935, Murnane joined the board of directors of the American Bosch Company. Fritz Mannheimer, the head of Mendelssohn, was a German agent. In 1937, Murnane became chairman of the board at American Bosch. Through this period, the American Bosch Company tried to get the German company to reduce the five-percent royalty it paid. To induce the German company to agree, American Bosch volunteered information about costs, selling prices and other competitive data. The Nazi government was delighted in the exchange of data because it provided them with a blueprint of American war production prior to the United States' entry into the war. As war approached, the Nazis sought to further camouflage the true owner of American Bosch and another sale was arranged by Dulles and Murnane to the Wallenbergs of Sweden. Besides the critical fuel injectors, Bosch also produced walkie-talkies for the Third Reich.
To further conceal German ownership, Dulles fabricated a maze of corporations that seemed American without transferring power outside of Germany. He had the Wallenbergs put their shares in Providentia, a Delaware corporation. Dulles was the sole voting trustee of the corporation and had full authority to dispose of the shares.
In July 1941, the Navy Department approached American Bosch on behalf of Caterpillar with the intention of manufacturing diesel equipment. American Bosch responded that it was willing to modify its exclusive rights; however, the corporation's rights were indivisible and thus the company was unable to grant the request.
In May 1942, American Bosch was confiscated under the Alien Property Custodian Act. A secret government document dated October 11, 1944, concluded that Dulles must have certainly known that American Bosch was German own.86 Nevertheless, Dulles was successful in delaying the widespread manufacturing of diesel engines for five years during the critical period when America sought to rebuild its military might.
The Justice Department's antitrust lawyers found that other Sullivan & Cromwell clients were prominent causes of bottlenecks in war production. Prosecution, however, had to be delayed until the end of the war; otherwise war production would have suffered adversely. In 1946, the chemical companies signed a consent decree paying a minimal fine of five thousand dollars. A list of those who faced or signed consent decrees reads like a list of Fortune 500 corporations, including Allied Chemical, American Agricultural Chemical, and Merck.
The question of how extensive the work of John Foster Dulles acting, as a middleman in setting up deals between the rich and the Nazis cannot be answered with any great certainty. However, Ronald Pruessen assembled documents from the State Department, in which Dulles acted as a fixer or middle man that indicates the total was more than one billion dollars. It is important to note that the total is only for deals, which Prussen uncovered and that it is a floor value. The total is mostly likely greater as it is unlikely that the State Department would have been aware of all of Dulles's deals.114
While today a single B-2 bomber costs more than one billion dollars, it is important to put the value of a billion dollars in the 1930s into context. The table below list the gross domestic product and the gross domestic private investments throughout the 1930s.
|
Year |
GDP |
GDPI115 |
|
1929 |
103.8 |
16.7 |
|
1930 |
91.1 |
10.6 |
|
1931 |
76.4 |
5.9 |
|
1932 |
58.6 |
1.1 |
|
1933 |
56.2 |
1.7 |
|
1934 |
65.9 |
3.7 |
|
1935 |
73.1 |
6.7 |
|
1036 |
83.6 |
8.7 |
|
1937 |
91.8 |
12.2 |
|
1938 |
85.9 |
7.1 |
|
1939 |
91.9 |
9.3 |
|
1940 |
101.2 |
13.6 |
GDP= Gross Domestic Product, GPDI= Gross Private Domestic Investment
Numbers given in Billions
One billion dollars during the 1930s ranged from ten percent to a high of two percent. Moreover, it ranges from ten percent to one hundred percent of the money domestically invested in the United States by the private sector. The money Dulles siphoned from the American economy to invest in Nazi Germany undoubtedly prolonged and deepened the depression. To put it onto another perspective, in 1940 the Nazi war machine's budget was about five billion marks, in effect the amount of money Dulles had invested would have been enough for almost an entire year for the Nazi war machine.
Likewise, Commerce Department records shows that investments in Germany increased 48.5% from 1929 to 1940.17 Additionally many U.S. firms bought direct interest in German firms and in turn plowed the profits back into the Aryanization (seizing of Jewish firms) or arms production. Among those firms are International Harvester, Ford, GM, Standard Oil of New Jersey and du Pont.
In the 1944 election campaign, Dulles advised Dewey to reject the issue of deploying U.S. troops under the command of the United Nations (note this does not refer to the present UN, but refers to the nations united in the war) causing a break in allied relations. Dulles was also responsible for the extremist remark in Dewey's campaign that FDR had weakened the Democratic Party so badly that it was readily subject to capture by communist forces. Dulles also wanted to charge FDR with un-preparedness in the bombing of Pearl Harbor. However, cooler heads prevailed with George Marshall contacting Dewey and advising him on not revealing the secret of Magic.87
Besides his close ties with Dewey, John Foster Dulles wormed his way into Republican politics by befriending Arthur Vandenberg, a staunch isolationist from Michigan. Vandenberg collaborated with Dulles on the foreign policy portion of the Republican platform in 1944. It was at Vandenberg's insistence that Dulles accompanied him to the San Francisco organizing meeting for the United Nations. Dulles promptly leaked information to the press on the bipartisan agreement poisoning the agreement and negotiations.
In the 1950s, John Foster Dulles testified at the first Hiss trial that he had asked Hiss to accept the position of president of the Carnegie Endowment for Peace. However, in the second Hiss trial, Dulles denied his previous testimony. Instead of Dulles being charged with perjury for the inconsistency of his testimony in the two trials, the inconsistency was blamed on Hiss.
Dulles was also instrumental in getting Eisenhower to run on the Republican ticket for president at the urging of General Clay. Dulles had lost his earlier chance to become secretary of state in Dewey's lost and was eager for a second chance. Before leaving for Europe to meet with Eisenhower, Dulles studied Eisenhower's background carefully. He learned that Ike was extremely popular with the public and was well known for his aversion to American casualties but was viewed as weak on foreign policy. Dulles flew to Europe to meet with Eisenhower. Dulles played on Eisenhower's aversion to American casualties during the Paris meeting by claiming that the modern strategy of maintaining peace was through massive retaliation with nuclear warheads to frighten enemies from attacking and keeping American boys from dying. Eisenhower was impressed with Dulles views and foreign policy was never discussed.88 The meeting cinched Dulles appointment as secretary of state in the Eisenhower administration.
In essence, the person who arranged more deals with the Nazis than any other person had hand-selected the next American President and appointed himself as secretary of state.
In 1951, the Federal Trade Commission produced a 400-page secret report which detailed the history of collusion in the oil market and exposed its cartel agreements around the globe. However, it wasn't until 1952 that an internal Justice Department memo noted the existence of cartel agreements that violated U.S. anti-trust laws among the seven largest oil companies. The delay was beneficial to the oil companies since the incoming Eisenhower administration was friendlier to business than the Truman administration.
On January 11, 1953, the Justice Department offered to drop criminal charges and only press a civil suit if the oil companies would produce the documents requested for the criminal case. Arthur Dean, the attorney for the oil companies refused the offer. Dean was another Sullivan and Cromwell lawyer.89 It was imperative that the oil companies avoided the court. Once in court, the Nazi dealings of Standard Oil of New Jersey and other oil companies during the war would have been exposed. Later in the Eisenhower administration, Dean was chosen to negotiate the return of POWs in Korea.
Both Dulles brothers played a role in obstructing the Standard case before the courts. Using the National Security Council, John Foster Dulles used the agency to screen evidence and segregate from public disclosure evidence that he viewed as having national security implications.
The Eisenhower administration was packed with Sullivan & Cromwell employees. Another Sullivan & Cromwell lawyer, Norris Darrell wrote the Internal Revenue Code of 1954.
As Secretary of State, Dulles used Sullivan & Cromwell to help carry on his support for former Nazi businessmen. He supported, the Republican Senate leader Everett Dirksen's bill to return all property held by the Alien Property Custodian to its previous owners. The value of the property confiscated was worth up to $200 million dollars. The former allies were horrified of the proposal. Releasing the property would have returned the property to the Nazis and their collaborators. Holland held $100 million dollars confiscated from the Nazis, a small fraction of the damage they had done.
Dulles tried to get the attorney general to postpone the sale of the Hugo Stinnes Corporation, which held assets of the coal king of the Rhur. Since, anyone legally could bid on the property, Dulles the bidding in such a way only Germans could bid arranged through Arthur Dean. There was only one bidder, the Deutsche Bank of Frankfurt. The role that Dean and Dulles performed in the sale still remains classified.90
The Dulles brothers used their positions at Sullivan & Cromwell to rise not only to prominent positions inside the United States, but also to key positions that aided their financing of Hitler's war machine. John Foster Dulles became a director of I.G., while his brother Allen was of the board of a leading German bank that became closely associated with the Nazis. Both were masters at drawing up arrangements to conceal the involvement of American corporations with the Nazis. Following WWII, as head of the CIA, Allen Dulles was in an ideal position to continue the cover-up of American corporate involvement with the Nazis, as well as helping scores of Nazi war criminals escape justice.
Following the first war, many large American investment firms and corporations invested heavily in Germany. In return for their dollars, they received bonds backed by shares in a Swiss holding company that owned shares in German banks. The banks in turn held shares in major German corporations that owned some of the world's most valuable patents. The German banks in effect held a world-wide monopoly on high-technology. (Note high-technology is used in the context of the time and refers to the chemical industry.) There was even talk of setting up a world-wide patent cartel in Germany so American investors could escape U.S. anti-trust laws.
The Dulles brothers were also the masterminds behind the Dawes Plan, which had the support and backing of J. P. Morgan. Under the Dawes Plan, the United States lent Germany money to pay its international reparations to England and France. In turn, England and France repaid the United States. For a while this financial merry-go-round was successful and the Dulles brothers' clients reaped a financial windfall. From 1924 to 1931, Germany paid the Allies about 36 billion marks in reparations, but received about 33 billion marks borrowed under the Dawes and Young Plans. This resulted in the burden of German reparations being shifted to the buyers of German bonds sold by Wall Street firms at hefty commissions.
Besides the significant involvement of the Dulles brothers and J.P. Morgan, the General Electric corporation played a tremendous role in the Dawes Plan and the Young Plan. Owen Young, author of the Young Plan, was a member of GE's board and part of the brain trust behind the Dawes Plan. General Electric had considerable investments in Germany and benefited immensely from the Young Plan.
To fully understand its involvement in both ill-conceived German bailout plans, one must look at GE's management. Gerard Swope, president of General Electric, and Walter Rathenau, a managing director of GE's German subsidiary, opposed free enterprise. Rathenau's view of the inter-war period's new political economy are summed up in this quote:
"The new economy will, as we have seen, be no state or governmental economy but a private economy committed to a civic power of resolution which certainly will require state cooperation for organic consolidation to overcome inner friction and increase production and endurance."72
It is obvious from the quote that Rathenau believed that the ultimate power should be held by corporations and that the government's only function was to pave the way for corporate rule.
Swope's held similar beliefs. He called for an anti-trust law exemption for the electrical manufacturing industry. In 1931, Swope proposed the formation of trade associations resembling cartels governed by a central quasi-governmental agency. Such laws would only serve to limit competition, as did the cartels and trade associations of Nazi Germany.
Between the cartel agreements of I.G. and the monopolistic behavior of our own robber barons, the Dulles brothers had no shortage of investors willing to invest in Germany. In 1940, Professor Gaetano Salvemini of Harvard was quoted as saying that 100 percent of American big business was sympathetic towards fascism. Corporate America's support for fascism was so great that U.S. Ambassador to Germany William Dodd proclaimed:
"A clique of U.S. industrialists is hell-bent to bring a fascist state to supplant our democratic government and is working closely with the fascist regime in Germany and Italy." 21
Americans have never been told the truth about the extent of corporate America's involvement with the Nazis. The media has spoon-fed Americans into believing that only a handful of companies traded with the Nazis. Nothing could be further from the truth. In reality, well over 300 American corporations were arming Nazi Germany during the war in violation of the law.
Many of these corporations took extraordinary steps to maintain communication with their German offices and to conceal their Nazi involvement from the U.S. government. They could have severed all links with Nazi Germany, but instead chose to continue support a regime at war with their own country. In doing so, these corporations became willing accomplices to the Holocaust, traitors to their country and guilty of war crimes. Those responsible for such actions and crimes should have received justice at the end of a hangman's noose. Sadly, none were even charged.
Even the bluest of the "blue chips," IBM, actively sought business with the Nazis during the war. Dehomag, IBM's German subsidiary, supplied the Hollerith machines that played a prominent role in the Holocaust. Without Hollerith machines the efficiency with which the Holocaust was carried out would have been impossible. The roundup of the Jews would have been slowed to a snail's pace by forcing the Nazis to divert additional manpower to the task of locating their Jewish victims. Hollerith machines were located in every concentration camp and were serviced by Dehomag representatives under the full appraisal of the New York office.
The inclusion of IBM provides a look at the mindset of corporate America. Edwin Black's IBM and the Holocaust details the ruthlessness of corporate America in its pursuit of profits. 22 When the Nazis came to power, IBM was under the direction of Thomas Watson, who actively sought out a contract to provide the equipment for the Nazi census.
Up until then, Watson's career had been less than ethically stellar. Watson learned his business skills from John Patterson, the ruthless founder of the National Cash Register (NCR). Watson rose quickly in the ranks of NCR, learning to use frivolous lawsuits against competitors, as well as the threat of lawsuits against competitors' customers. At NCR, Watson was placed in charge of driving out competitors selling used equipment. He quickly adopted the tactics of the robber barons to establish a monopoly by using predatory pricing, threats of lawsuits, bribes and even smashed storefronts. On February 22, 1912, Watson was indicted for criminal conspiracy to restrain trade and found guilty. 23
The criminal behavior and lack of ethics illustrated by Watson's early career was pervasive between the wars. When the Nazis seized power, Watson saw an opportunity to expand in Germany. In the depths of the Great Depression, Watson increased IBM's investment in Germany by nearly a million dollars. Even more gratifying was the secret pact Watson concluded in October, 1933 which gave Dehomag commercial powers beyond the German borders. Previously, all IBM subsidiaries had been confined to a single country. With Dehomag now established as the defacto "IBM Europe," the Nazis were able to conduct statistical services throughout Europe. In effect, Watson had established a cartel much like I.G. Farben's.
In an attempt to justify Watson's, and IBM's dealings with the Nazis, many suggest that Watson was not a fascist, but simply a ruthless businessman. Evidence, however, suggests that if Watson was not a fascist, he was at the very least a great admirer of fascism. At a 1937 sales convention Watson said:
"I want to pay tribute(to the) great leader, Benito Mussolini. I have followed the details of his work very carefully since he assumed leadership. Evidence of his leadership can be seen on all sides. Mussolini is a pioneer.... Italy is going to benefit greatly."26
This is not the only evidence of Watson's support and admiration for fascism. He also had an autographed picture of Mussolini hanging in his living room for years. Watson was quoted saying:
"we should pay tribute to Mussolini for establishing this spirit of loyal support." 26
In a private letter to Reich Economic Minister, Hjalmar Schacht, Watson wrote:
"the necessity of extending a sympathetic understanding to the German people and their aims under the leadership of Adolf Hitler. 26
Watson wrote the letter years after Hitler seized power, and described Nazi aggression toward neighboring countries as a dynamic policy. The letter ended with:
"an expression of my highest esteem for himself (Hitler), his country and his people." 26
While Watson's praise for Hitler and Mussolini do not supply definitive proof that Watson was a fascist, it certainly confirms the conclusion of Harvard professor, Gaetano Salvemini, that corporate America was in sympathy with fascism.
Before the ink was dry on the Treaty of Versailles, American corporations were rushing to invest and support Germany. The first to support what became the Nazi line was Henry Ford. In the early 1920s, Ford began publishing an anti-Semitic newspaper. Ford was also an early financial supporter of Hitler at a time when the Nazis were virtually unknown.
Another early backer of Hitler and the Nazis were the du Ponts. The power behind the du Pont throne in the 1920s was Irenee du Pont who, like Ford, was a supporter of Hitler before he was known outside Munich. Irenee du Pont followed Hitler's career avidly from the early 1920s on. Du Pont representatives traveled to Germany almost immediately after the armistice to renew their alliance with I.G.
In November 1919, mere months after the armistice was signed, representatives of du Pont and the Badische Company, the principal corporate identity of I.G. Farben in Switzerland, worked out a tentative agreement for the organization of a global corporation to exploit the Haber process for ammonia and nitrate production. Du Pont also sought technical help in the dyestuffs industry. Although a complete agreement was never reached on a grand alliance, the relationship between du Pont, Verinigte Koln-Rottweiler Pulverfabriken (VKR) and Dynamit Aktiengesellschaft (DAG) became closer. At one point, du Pont had roughly three million dollars invested directly in I.G. Farben 24
The most notable aspect of the November 1919 meeting and tentative agreement was the lightning speed with which the German cartels reestablished control over the all-important Haber process for ammonia and nitrate production. All parties had a stake in completing the agreement behind closed doors, since the very nature of the agreement was in violation of the armistice. For Germany, it meant control over explosives and fertilizer production, freeing the country from dependence on Chilean nitrates. For du Pont, it was a matter of profits. Before WW II, one of the most profitable periods for du Pont was WW I. During that war, du Pont's profits rose to $230,000,000. The profits from the war were used to buy a controlling share of General Motors. 27
On January 1, 1926, an agreement between du Pont, VCR and DAG was consummated, and was similar to the agreement of the same date between du Pont and Imperial Chemical Industries of Britain. This agreement, debated at length in the 1934 Nye Committee hearings, was found unsigned in du Pont files. It was a gentlemen's agreement detailing exchanges of patents and technical information that could be denied if discovered. In defiance of the Treaty of Versailles banning German companies from selling military explosives, the agreement provided a means by which du Pont could sell German produced explosives. The Nye report provides the best summary of the agreement:
"In other words, though German munitions companies cannot sell abroad, American companies can sell for them, and to our own government at that." 25
In effect, the agreement between du Pont, DAG and VCR reestablished the pre-war cartel between du Pont, Koln-Rottweiler Pulverfabriken and the British Nobel Dynamite Trust. Under the pre-war agreement, du Pont agreed not to erect any powder works in Europe, and the other signers agreed not to erect powder works in the United States. Technical information was exchanged among the signatories, and du Pont agreed to inform the others of the quantity, quality and requirements of all powder sales to the United States government. In 1910, the Justice Department found the agreement to be a violation of anti-trust laws, resulting in the breakup of du Pont powder works and the formation of Atlas Powder and Hercules Powder. Within a few years of the 1910 ruling, du Pont reorganized in Delaware because to the state's lax regulations of corporations.
An agreement between du Pont and Dynamit in 1929 controlled the production of tetrazine, a substance for greatly improved ammunition primers. When WWII began in 1939, Remington (controlled by du Pont) received huge British ammunition orders. Because of a clause in the agreement with I.G. Farben the British received an inferior cartridge lacking tetrazine. 34
www.spiritone.com/~gdy52150/1920sp3.html
The Germans reestablished control over dyestuffs and pharmaceuticals with almost the same lightning speed with which they regained control over the Haber process. Under the Alien Property Custodian Act, Bayer's operating units and patents were sold to Sterling Products. Sterling later sold the dyestuff business to Grasselli Chemical Company. Such a transfer of ownership would have been a move in the right direction if it had not been for one disturbing factor: Grasselli Chemical Company employed many former Bayer personnel who supported Germany during the war. For instance, Rudolph Hutz, the former manager of Bayer interned during the war, became general manager at Grasselli.
In 1920, Bayer made an agreement with Sterling covering patents and trademarks. Then, in 1923, Bayer entered into an agreement to control Grasselli although Grasselli still held 51 percent of the stock. On March 23, 1925, Grasselli and Bayer entered into an agreement with Hoechst Company in which Grasselli's ownership was reduced to 35 percent. On October 20, 1928, Grasselli sold its dyestuff business to I.G. Farben. Three days later, du Pont bought out Grasselli Chemical.
The example of Grasselli Chemical illustrates some of the tactics employed by I.G. Farben. An endless paper shuffle resulting in the transfer of ownership (in name only) while retaining the same personnel was common to many post-WWI deals. Deals where the American firm retained 51 percent ownership made it appear to regulators that the American firm was in control. In reality, I.G. Farben retained ultimate control over pricing, plant expansion and export policies.
The paper shuffle of Grasselli Chemical's dyestuff business did not end with the 1928 sale to I.G. Farben. In 1929, I.G.Farben merged the majority of its interests in the United States into an umbrella company, American I.G. Under this umbrella corporation were Grasselli Dyestuffs, General Aniline, Agfa-Ansco, Winthrop Chemical, Magnesium Development and others. In April 1929, $30 million dollars of American I.G. debentures were offered to investors; within an hour of their release, the offering was oversubscribed. The agreement between Magnesium Development and I.G. Farben would figure prominently at the onset of WWII in delaying the production of aircraft.
Sterling Drug was part of the maze of front companies that I.G. Farben and Bayer used to regain control over assets seized during the war. In 1918, the Alien Property Custodian sold Bayer at a public auction. Sterling was the winning bidder at $5.31 million dollars. Earl McClintock, a staff attorney for the Alien Property Custodian, arranged the details of the sale. One of the first acts of Sterling was to hire McClintock at more than three times his government salary.
Law governing sales by the Alien Property Custodian penalized a purchaser acting for an undisclosed principal or reselling to or for the benefit of a non-U.S. citizen with a $10,000 fine, 10 years imprisonment, or both. The purchaser would also forfeit the property to the United States government.31 The sale of Bayer to Sterling clearly fell within the scope of the law.
The original contact between Sterling and Bayer remains secret. It is, however, well-established that months after the purchase, Sterling president William Weiss met with Bayer executives in Baden Baden. An informal agreement of cooperation was reachedand shortly afterwards Sterling formed Winthrop Chemical. In 1923, Winthrop entered into a cartel agreement assigning itself all of Bayer's patents. Once again, the familiar 50-50 split was part of the agreement.
In 1925, I.G. Farben and Sterling-Winthrop brought Metz into the Sterling orbit. The result of all of the stock transfers and paper shuffling was that I.G. Farben regained control of the U.S. pharmaceutical business for a mere two million dollars.
The Hoechst-Metz Company was also seized by the Alien Property Custodian. Metz claimed that he had bought back the assets of the company, but it was commonly believed to have been a dubious stock transaction. In 1921, a court ruled in favor of Metz. In his bizarre rambling ruling, Judge Julius M. Mayer said:
"As seizure by the Alien Property Custodian is likely to carry the suggestion to those not informed in respect of the controversy, that the demandee (Metz) in some manner may have been improperly associated with the enemy, it is desirable at the outset to state that no such situation exists here. The Transactions here took place long before our entry into the war and indeed before the European war started and had no relations to either. That Metz should deliberately by his testimony falsify the true transaction is not to be thought of. Stock ownership would not affect the apportionment of profits. This testimony of Hauser can only be rejected upon the theory that both Hauser and Metz have willfully deceived the court by false testimony."35
Shortly after the ruling, the Harding administration appointed Judge Mayer to the Federal Circuit Court. What Mayer lacked in legal acumen was offset by his political correctness for the time. Mayer ordered the deportation of Emma Goldman, ruling that aliens had no rights under the Constitution. In another ruling, Mayer found Scott Nearing innocent of obstructing the war. Nearing had written a pamphlet about the relationship between big business and war. However, Mayer found the American Socialist Party, which had published the pamphlet guilty of the obstructing the war. Such a ruling was a slight of hand by the judge. If he had found Nearing guilty, it would have constituted a violation of his free speech rights. On the other hand, as an organization the American Socialist Party lacked free speech rights. Other victims of the good judge were IWW members, who could expect to receive the harshest sentences possible in Mayer's courtroom.
Judge Julius Mayer's rulings were a reflection of the prevailing attitudes and beliefs of the days' business leaders. His rulings were extremely pro-business and anti-union. He showed no tolerance for those that held political beliefs different from his.
George Sylvester Viereck and his Burgerbund campaigned extensively for the election of Harding. Following the election Viereck demanded a political payoff. Harding was noncommittal.91Viereck would become the man behind the notorious Nazi publisher Flanders Hall and would be indicted for sedition.
By 1925, I.G. Farben had established powerful allies inside the Republican administration. The then Secretary of Commerce, Herbert Hoover, appointed a nine-member board, Hoover's Chemical Advisory Committee. Seated on the committee were Walter Teagle (Standard Oil of New Jersey), Lammot du Pont, Frank Blair (president of Sterling Drug) and Henry Howard (vice-president of Grasselli). Despite the extensive ties these four had with I.G. Farben they sat on a committee whose role was to help America's chemical industry fight off the I.G. Farben cartel.37
In 1928, Weiss brought the entire drug industry together in one giant cartel. With Louis Liggett, he put together Drug, Inc., a holding company for Sterling-Winthrop. Drug's properties included United Drug, Ligget, Bristol Myers, Vick Chemical and Life Savers. The Vick Chemical company was controlled by the Richardson family. The Richardson Foundation is one of the many hard-right foundations that promoted the impeachment of President Clinton.32
Liggett was the Republican National Committeeman from Massachusetts and had made the false claim that, under President Coolidge, the Department of Justice had approved the creation of Drug, Inc. It wasn't until 1933, after Hoover was booted out of office, that Drug, Inc. was dissolved.
Also tied to the illegal cartel of Drug, Inc. was the notorious Dr. Edward Rumely. Rumely was imprisoned for pro-German activities during the war and was released from prison by Coolidge. He then went on to become director of Vehex Inc., another corporation formed by Weiss.
Throughout the maze of paper shuffling and stock transfers, the accounting firm of Price Waterhouse collected fat fees for auditing the books of two of I.G. Farben's American affiliates, Sterling and Standard Oil of New Jersey.33 Audits from Price Waterhouse helped sanitize the records of Drug, Inc. and other IG Farben front companies
Ted Clark was vice president for government relations of Drug, Inc. from 1929 until it was dismantled. Clark was President Coolidge's private secretary. While on Drug, Inc.'s payroll, Clark also served a short time as Hoover's secretary, during an absence of Hoover's regular secretary. In 1942, Clark's files were suddenly withdrawn from auction and donated as a sealed gift to the Library of Congress. Those who had seen the files prior to their sealing noted correspondence with Col. William Donovan, Coolidge's assistant attorney general, and Charles Hilles, former chairman of the Republican National Committee and close associate of the Morgans.
The timing of the file withdrawal appears highly suspicious. Donovan was closely involved with both Drug, Inc. and I.G. Farben. He became director of the OSS in June 1942 about the time the files were sealed.36 Donovan spoke patronizingly towards I.G. Farben at Hoover's second conference on the chemical industry:
"So far as it presently appears, the so-called chemical entente and Franco-German dyestuff agreement appear to involve no attempt to exploit this market. In fact, we have authentic assurances that these arrangements are not directed against the market."38.
I.G. Farben had learned its lessons well during the first war. Its American interests were vulnerable to seizure at wartime. In a move that should have set off an alarm about Germany's intentions towards war, I.G. Farben made an effort to conceal its ownership of American I.G. further. Even with Walter Teagle, president of Standard Oil of New Jersey, and Edsel Ford on its board of directors, American I.G. was vulnerable to seizure if war broke out. With a sleight of hand, American I.G. assets were transferred to a German-controlled corporation based in Switzerland, Internationale Gesellschaft fur Chemische Unternehmungen (I.G. Chemie). It was loudly proclaimed from then on that American I.G. was Swiss-controlled, and free from German interests, even though, until 1940, the president of I.G. Farben, Herman Schmitz, was also president of I.G. Chemie.28
The ruse of concealing German control through various Swiss concerns soon became a favorite tactic of I.G. Farben. With the storm clouds of war on the horizon by the late 1930s, it also became a favorite tactic of the Dulles brothers in helping American investors conceal their dealings with the Nazis.
Another German firm seized during WWI was Rohm & Hass, which was sold to Tanner's Products. The tanning industry at the time played an important role in support of war-related chemical facilities. In 1924, the original German owners regained control. Technically, Rohm & Hass of Philadelphia was independent of Rohm &Hass of Germany; they were merely owned by the same stockholders. In 1927, the two firms reached an agreement regarding the division of territories. The agreement was typical of German cartel arrangements in that it restricted American companies from South America and Europe, granting those areas to the German corporation.
During the 1920s and 1930s, Rohm and Haas' primary business was producing general chemicals, in particular methyl methacrylate, Plexiglas. By 1934, Plexiglas reached commercial practicability and a new agreement was reached between I.G. Farben, Rohm and Hass of Philadelphia, and Rohm and Hass of Germany . Rohm and Haas of Philadelphia's territory was further restricted, and it was prohibited from entering six business areas: photography, dyestuffs, artificial rubber, pharmaceuticals, abrasives and celluloid masses.
In 1939, Rohm & Haas cross-licensed its process for making cast sheets of methyl methacrylate to du Pont. However, under the terms of the license, du Pont's production would be limited to half of Rohm & Haas' production. By 1940, the market for methyl methacrylate had exploded because of wartime applications. Du Pont was receiving enormous orders for Lucite and Plexiglas that far outstripped the restricted production agreement. On August 10, 1942, a grand jury indicted both Rohm & Hass and du Pont for restricting the production of war munitions.
Besides producing methyl methacrylate for airplane canopies, Rohm and Haas also produced Tego glue film. Tego glue film was needed to produce the plywood used for aircraft and marine vessels such as PT boats. Once again, Rohm and Haas had a production agreement with a German firm covering Tego, Theo Goldschmidt.
There are literally thousands of examples of I.G. Farben and other German firms regaining control over vital industrial processes in the 1920s. Among the most startling were two areas in which American industry dominated: aluminum and magnesium.
In 1907, the Pittsburgh Reduction Company reorganized as Alcoa. Alcoa was closely held by the Mellons, the Davises and the Hunts. Alcoa held two patents for the production of aluminum: the Hall Patent, which expired in 1906, and the Bradley Patent, which expired in 1909. Theoretically, the expiration of the patents would have allowed others to enter the aluminum business. In order to retain its monopoly after 1909, Alcoa took steps to ensure its control over the aluminum market by buying up the raw bauxite supply. Until 1915, Alcoa was a member of every world aluminum cartel.
By 1928, Alcoa owned 32 subsidiaries including railroads, bauxite mines, fabricators, and power companies both in and out of the United States such as Duke Power of Canada. Additionally, Alcoa controlled more than 20 other companies.
Alcoa created the Aluminum Company, Ltd. of Canada (Alted) in 1928. In this move Alcoa sold its subsidiaries all its foreign properties with the exception of its Dutch Guiana bauxite mines. The controlling interest of Alted remained the same, and E.K. Davis was appointed president. The creation of Alted was a ruse used by Alcoa to retain its monopoly. It also freed Alcoa to enter into additional European cartel agreements through its Alted subsidiary. When the war clouds appeared and the United States began a defense build up, the end result of Alted's creation became apparent: the United States was no longer the world's largest aluminum producer; Germany was now number one.29
Intertwined with Germany gaining control over the aluminum industry was its control over magnesium, another industry in which America was either dominant or competitive with Germany by the end of WWI. Magnesium is vital to munitions and is used in tracer bullets, flares and incendiary bombs. Also, magnesium alloys are indispensable in aircraft production. During the first war, eight American companies produced magnesium.
With the end of the war and the reduction in magnesium demand, only two companies stayed in the business: Dow Chemical and American Magnesium Company (AMC). AMC was a wholly owned subsidiary of Alcoa. In 1931, Alcoa and I.G. Farben penned the Alig Agreement, which became the charter of the magnesium industry. Once again, the agreement formed a joint company with each firm holding a 50 percent share. In addition, the shareholders of I.G. Farben held the right to limit the production capacity of any producing company in the U.S. and restrict total U.S. production to 4,000 tons per year.
In 1933, after continued pressure from AMC, Dow affirmed AMC as its preferred customer. In 1934, I.G. Farben entered into an agreement with Dow to purchase 600 tons of magnesium in 1935, with options for the same amount in 1936 and 1937. Under the agreement, Dow was restricted from selling in Europe with the exception of sales to I.G. Farben and British Maxium. Under this arrangement, Dow sold magnesium to I.G Farben at 20 cents per pound, 30 percent less than it charged American companies.30
The above cartel agreements are only a few examples. A complete accounting of all cartel agreements and how they hindered the war effort, would fill volumes. More than one hundred American corporations had cartel agreements with I.G. Farben. None of the agreements were legal under US trust laws, as all monopolized or restricted trade. Additionally, many were illegal under Alien Property Custodian laws since they transferred control to I.G Farben and other German corporations seized during WWI.
Besides hindering the war effort at home, once war broke out in Europe, cartel agreements had an enormous impact on global geopolitics. Almost all cartel agreements banned American corporations from South America. Germany didn't need to fight for South American markets; American businesses willingly handed them over to I.G. Farben when they signed the cartel agreements. It was only after war broke out that American corporations were allowed to expand their markets into South America, and then often only to German firms already there.40
It was through these South American outlets that American corporations continued to supply Nazi Germany during the war. They served as the method of choice to circumvent the British blockade. By using a South American firm, either under the control of I.G. Farben or one of its American cartel partners shipments to Germany were first exported to a so-called neutral country such as Spain or Switzerland and then on to Germany. It was through a South American subsidiary that Standard Oil of New Jersey continued to supply Nazi Germany with oil and munitions. Standard Oil of New Jersey also distributed pro-Nazi propaganda throughout South America during the war.
Corporate apologists try to dismiss these cartel agreements simply as good business practices. However, legal documents from I.G. Farben suggest they were an integral part of Germany's war plan. The following excerpts from its legal department leave no doubt as to I.G. Farben's plans:
...After the first war we came more and more to the decision to tarn (German for hood or camouflage) our foreign companies in such a way that participation of I.G. in these firms was not shown. In the course of time the system became more and more perfect."
...If the shares or similar interests are actually held by a neutral who resides in a neutral country, enemy economic warfare measures are ineffectual; even an option in favor of I.G. will remain unaffected."
...Protective measures to be taken by I.G. for the eventuality of war should not substantially interfere with the conduct of business in normal times. For a variety of reasons it is of the utmost importance that the officials heading the agent firms, which are particularly well qualified to serve as cloaks, should be citizens of the countries where they reside."
...In practice, a foreign patent holding company could conduct its business only by maintaining the closest possible relations with I.G., with regard to applications, processing and exploitation of patents it is sufficient to refer to experience."
The adoption of these measures would offer protection against seizure in the event of war.
...In the case of winning this war the mightful situation of the Reich will make it necessary to re-examine the system of Tarnung. Politically seen, it will often be wished that the German character of our foreign companies is openly shown."
After the outbreak of war, I.G. legal department continued discussing tarnung.
...Only about 1937 when a new conflict became apparent did we take pains to improve our camouflage in endangered countries in a way that they should, even under wartime difficulties, at least prevent immediate seizure."
...Camouflage measures taken by us have stood us in good stead, and in numerous cases have even exceeded our expectations."41
The excerpts above leave little doubt as to the intentions of I.G. Farben and the central role it played in Germany's quest for world domination. A Treasury report on espionage and saboteurs made in 1941-1942 is equally vivid:
"In the twenty year period between 1919-1939, German interests succeeded in organizing within the United States another industrial and commercial network centered in the chemical industry. It is unnecessary to point out that these business enterprises constituted a base of operations to carry out the Axis plans to control production, to hold markets in this Hemisphere, to support fifth column movements, and to mold our postwar economy according to Axis plans. This problem with which we are now faced is more difficult than, although somewhat similar to, the problem faced by us in 1917. The background is vastly different from that which existed in 1917.
Certain individuals who occupied a dominant place in business enterprises owed all of their success to their business contacts in the past with I.G. Farben."42
The Treasury report went on to discuss I.G. Farben's the practice of sending spies and agents into the United States to become citizens. The report also discusses the necessity of dismissing, as spies or agents of the Nazis, one hundred American citizens from General Aniline, including five key executives .
I.G. Farben's employment of spies, and its relationship to the Gestapo, were made vividly clear to Congress months before the bombing of Pearl Harbor. Richard Krebs, former Gestapo agent, testified before the Dies Committee on Un-American Activities. Later chapters will discuss how the Dies Committee subverted the investigation of Nazis.
Krebs testified at length, from his personal knowledge of German cartels, about the organization of Nazi propaganda, espionage and sabotage in the Western Hemisphere. In his testimony, Krebs stated that Hamburg-American Lines and Zapp Transocean News Services were nothing more than appendages of the Gestapo. Krebs detailed how businesses in the Untied States employed Gestapo agents, and how those agents were placed in other firms that were not a part of pro-Nazi cartels.
Krebs' testimony revealed that the Gestapo's Industrial Reports Department had special schools to train Germans and Americans of German descent to work in America as mechanics, engineers, draftsmen, newsmen and even teachers. Krebs specifically stated the relationship of I.G to the Gestapo was to obtain information. An excerpt of Kreb's testimony follows:
"to obtain information about our security program and to produce choke points, or to sabotage our war efforts.
The I.G. Farbenundustrie, I know from personal experience, was already in 1934 completely in the hands of the Gestapo. They went so far as to have their own Gestapo prison on the factory grounds of their large works at Leuna, and began, particularly after Hitler's ascent to power, to branch out in the foreign field through subsidiary factories. It is the greatest poison gas industry in the world, concentrated under the title of I.G. Farbenindustrie."43
While there was less sabotage during WWII than during WWI, the new tactics were just as useful in delaying the production of war equipment and munitions. As an example, Standard Oil of New Jersey managed to delay any increase in the production of toluol until 1941 out of deference to I.G. Farben. Toluol is the vital starting material for producing both TNT and butadiene, the feedstock for the production of synthetic rubber.
There is at least one report that Standard Oil of New Jersey intended to resume its cartel link with I.G. Farben following WWII. In May 1942, Walter Winchell stated that a news broadcaster for CBS had been effectively silenced when reporting on both the Truman and Boone Committees. This broadcaster had included in his script reports that Standard Oil of New Jersey intended to resume ties with I.G. when the war ended. A CBS censor killed the item and was reported to have told the broadcaster to "go easy on Standard, you know we carry plenty of their business."44
By the time Pearl Harbor was bombed, support for fascism was widespread, especially within large corporations Some of this was the direct result of IBM President Tom Watson's tenure as president of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC). The ICC enthusiastically promoted trade with Nazi Germany. In 1937, the International Chamber of Commerce held its world congress in Berlin, during which Schacht presented Watson with Hitler's medal. Watson later returned the medal, but only after it was clear that war was imminent.
Throughout the 1930s, several large newspaper chains were openly pro-Nazi, as were many Congressmen. By the end of 1942, the proclaimed list of blacklisted companies (Nazi front corporations in Europe and South America) grew to over 5,000.45 In the process, many American corporations were shown to be still trading with the Nazis. None of these companies would ever face charges, because by 1942 support for fascism and the corporate state was thoroughly entrenched in American corporate culture.
Support for fascism within the corporate community can be traced back to the period immediately following WWI into the 1920s. None of the cartel agreements would have been possible without the voluntary cooperation of America's corporate leaders. Many, such as du Pont, actively sought out cartel agreements following the first world war, while others, such as Standard Oil Of New Jersey, were willing to reach new cartel agreements with I.G Farben and Germany once the second world war ended. The widespread enthusiasm to enter into such agreements can only be understood by exploring the attitudes of America's corporate leaders following WWI.
www.spiritone.com/~gdy52150/1920sp4.html
The war had been good for American corporations' bottom lines, many reaped fat profits. Prices had been frozen during the war, and businesses were eager to raise prices once controls were lifted. In effect, the leaders of corporate America saw themselves as victims of the political atmosphere of the previous 20 years.
First, prices had been frozen during the war. Second, many corporations had been seized because of their illegal, trade-restricting cartel agreements with I.G. Moreover, prior to the war, corporations had suffered under the great trustbuster, Teddy Roosevelt.
In fact, leaders of corporate America were spoiling for a fight. The liberal and progressive movements that had ushered in the new century were fueled largely by the muckrakers. The press had exposed the robber barons and their practices for all to see. The attack on organized capital and the rich elite (such as Rockefeller, Morgan and Mellon) was fully justified. Their policies were universally detested and resented by the public. Naturally, corporate America resented the attacks and sought to resume business-as-usual.
However, to the leaders of corporate America, business-as-usual meant recreating the huge trusts and reestablishing their monopolies. Inking new cartel agreements with I.G. Farben was merely re-instituting their perceived right to rule the world. The similarity of the cartel agreements to the behavior of the robber barons cannot be underestimated.
At the end of WWI, the leaders of corporate America saw two threats to their dreams of grandeur looming on the horizon: organized labor and the Bolshevik Revolution. Out of these threats, the most shameful period of political repression was launched, the infamous Red Scare of 1919. Having experienced first-hand the power of the press, corporate America employed the media in a full-scale assault to regain their stature. They used the three most successful propaganda elements ever devised: patriotism, religion and communism.
Fanning Red Scare flames required the employment of every possible asset to destroy unions and the threats of both communism and socialism. The groundwork for this assault had been laid before the end of the war. J.P Morgan, according to Congressman Oscar Callaway, had purchased control over the media. Callaway inserted the following into the Congressional Record:
"In March, 1915, the J.P. Morgan interests, the steel, shipbuilding, and powder interests, and their subsidiary organizations, got together 12 men high up in the newspaper world, and employed them to select the most influential newspapers in the United States and sufficient number of them to control generally the policy of the daily press of the United States. These 12 men worked the problem out by selecting 179 newspapers, and then began, by an elimination process, to retain only those necessary for the purpose of controlling the general policy of the daily press throughout the country. They found it was only necessary to purchase the control of 25 of the greatest papers. The 25 papers were agreed upon; emissaries were sent to purchase the policy, national and international, of these papers; an agreement was reached; the policy of the papers was bought, to be paid for by the month; an editor was furnished for each paper to properly supervise and edit information regarding the questions of preparedness, militarism, financial policies, and other things of national and international nature considered vital to the interests of the purchasers... This policy also included the suppression of everything in opposition to the wishes of the interests served."73
The Morgan family, along with its allies, also bankrolled the formation of the American Legion in 1919 and crafted it into a union-busting organization of thugs. The initial operating officers of the Legion were bankers, stockbrokers and the like.
The Legion took on a fascist character almost from its birth, and would play a prominent role in the fascist plot against Roosevelt in the 1930s. In 1923, the Legion's Commander of Alvin Owsley, openly embraced Mussolini, and endorsed fascism as a viable policy for the United States. As quoted in the Journal of the National Education Association, Owsley equated the Legion in America with the Fascisti in Italy.
"...the American Legion stands ready to protect our country's institutions and ideals as the Fascisti dealt with the destructionists who menaced Italy... The American Legion is fighting every element that threatens our democratic government - soviets, anarchists, I.W.W., revolutionary socialists and every other red... Do not forget that the Fascisti are to Italy what the American Legion is to the United States."16
Additionally, the Legion took on a racist character through the 1920s and 1930s, and served as a recruiting base for the rebirth of the Ku Klux Klan. In the south, many Legion posts ran and operated as Klan cells.
This should not be taken as a besmirching of those who have honorably served their country . In fact, the disgust of many disgruntled veterans, who resented being used as cannon fodder by the wealthy elite, led to the formation of the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW). It was the VFW that led the fight for early payment of veterans' bonuses after the 1929 stock market crash. The American Legion stood idly by, supporting the failed policies of Wall Street and the Hoover administration.
The importance of the anti-union aspects of the Legion is apparent in the events leading up to 1919 Red Scare. By the end of 1919, the purchasing power of the 1913 dollar had shrunk to 45 cents. Food costs had increased by 84 percent, clothing 114.5 percent and furniture 125 percent. By the end of 1919, the cost of living had risen 99 percent in the preceding five years. 46 Wages during this time had risen, at most, five to ten percent for salaried employees. In fact, workers such as salaried clerks, police and others in similar positions were worse off than at any time since the Civil War.
Organized labor made substantial gains during the earlier, more liberal times with such labor-friendly bills as the Clayton Act, Seamen's Law and the Adamson Act. Membership in the American Federation of Labor had increased from approximately 500,000 in 1900 to more than four million by 1919. Unions had maintained an effective truce with management during the war, but with the war's end, unions took the offensive. Many employers were willing to grant moderate wage increases, but absolutely refused to negotiate or even acknowledge workers' rights to join unions.
President Wilson had foreseen the coming struggle of unions as evidenced in his remark to Secretary of the Navy, Josephus Daniels in 1917, just prior to the United States intervention in the war in Europe:
"Every reform we have won will be lost if we go into this war. We have been making a fight on special privilege. War means autocracy. The people we have unhorsed will inevitably come into control of the country for we shall be dependent upon steel, ore and financial magnates. They will ruin the nation."47
By late 1919, Wilson would be bedridden due to a stroke and remain ineffective for the last year of his term.
The industrialists and leaders of corporate America, however, wanted a return to "normalcy," meaning freedom from government regulation, freedom from unions and freedom from public responsibility. Thus, the stage was set for a full-scale assault against organized labor. Major strikes were frequent in 1919, with a total of 3,600 strikes involving more than four million workers. Strikers were only occasionally successful, with most ending with no concessions to labor or the unions.
Secondary to the plight of organized labor, but central to the 1919 Red Scare, were various espionage laws enacted during the war aimed at German agents and cartels. These laws would now be used against the leaders of the labor movement, and those on the left side of the political spectrum.
During the war, hysteria was whipped into a frenzy by independent agencies such as the National Security League, the American Defense Society and the government-sponsored American Protective League. These organizations converted otherwise sane Americans into raging superpatriots. More often than not, these superpatriots and their organizations were a blight on freedom, and were used by the right wing to gain and maintain power.
These superpatriot groups gathered their strength from the right-wing, not the general public, their financial support coming directly from corporations and the rich elite. The National Civic Federation received most of its support from V. Everit Macy, August Belmont and Elbert Gary. Likewise, the National Protective League was supported by T. Coleman du Pont, Henry Frick, J.P. Morgan and John D. Rockefeller.50 While the National Civic Federation was under the direction of Matthew Woll as acting president, it collaborated closely with Nazi agents in this country.62 Another group from the 1920s that underwent the transformation from a nativist group to fascism was Harry Jung's American Vigilant Intelligence Federation.67
[EDITOR: sounds like today's BS "Tea Party" Astroturf fraud]
In effect, these superpatriot groups, along with the American Legion, were bridging the chasm between the rich elite and the general population. These groups were fashioned in such a way as to appeal to a large segment of the population by invoking a false sense of patriotism, while the directors and operating officers remained fully under the control of the elite. Secondary to the patriotism of these groups was a very conservative economic agenda. With the exception of the National Civic Federation, all of these groups were virulently anti-union. The National Civic Federation included a few trade unionists on its board of directors, but still maintained an aggressive open shop policy.
In the post-war period, the membership of these patriot groups was relatively small. However, they exerted an influence that far outstripped their numbers. Their propaganda efforts were well-funded and well-organized. The National Security League sent pamphlets to schoolteachers, clergy, businessmen and government workers. In every major city, they formed a flying squadron of speakers to whip up public sentiment against radicalism. At the time unionism was regarded by these groups as radicalism.
Central to the hysteria were three federal acts. The first was the 1917 Espionage Act. This act made it illegal to convey false reports with the intent to interfere with the operation or success of the military forces of the United States, to promote the success of its enemies or to attempt to cause insubordination, disloyalty and mutiny. The second was the Sedition Act of 1918. Under the Sedition Act it was illegal to utter, print, write or publish any disloyal, profane or abusive language about the form of the U.S. government, the Constitution or the military. The third act, passed in October 1918, decreed that all aliens who were anarchists or advocated the assassination of public officials were to be excluded from admission to the United States.
While only a handful of pro-Nazis would ever face charges under these laws during WWII, thousands of individuals would be rounded up under these laws in 1919. These laws, and the plight of labor, would now play a central role in the events leading up to the mass hysteria of the Red scare of 1919 initiated by the Palmer Raids.
One of the first victims of the espionage laws was Victor Berger, one of the founders of the Socialist Party. The Socialists opposed the war, as did Berger. In 1918, Berger was arrested under the Espionage Act for his statements, some of which follows below:
"Personally, I was against the war before war was declared. But now since we are in the war, I want to win this war for democracy. Let us hope we will win the war quickly. The war of the United States against Germany cannot be justified. The blood of American boys is being coined into swollen profits for American plutocrats.48
Berger was arrested for the part of his statement that threatened the leaders of corporate America. While awaiting trial, Berger ran for his old seat in the House of Representatives, winning it back on a peace platform. In January 1919, Berger was found guilty of conspiracy to violate the Espionage Act and sentenced to 20 years at Leavenworth. His conviction was only the beginning of the destruction of the Socialist Party. Party Secretary Charles Schenck, who had ordered the printing of leaflets that discouraged enlistment, was convicted shortly after Berger of violating the Espionage Act.
Many other prominent members of the Socialist Party were arrested for violations of the Espionage Act. In June 1918, Eugene Debs delivered a scathing speech denouncing the arrests of such prominent Socialists as Charles Ruthenberg, Alfred Wagenknecht, Kate Richards O'Hare and Rose Pastor Stokes. Shortly thereafter, Debs was arrested.
The arrests of prominent Socialists were systematic, and before the hysteria of the 1919 Red Scare was over the party would be destroyed, but the war profiteers would be protected.
Closely associated with the Socialist Party in the minds of the public were members of the International Workers of the World, or the Wobblies. Founded in 1905 as a protest over the conservative American Federation of Labor, the Wobblies were aggressive in both demands and actions. Like the Socialists, the Wobblies would be singled out during the Red Scare for destruction.
Before the war's end, corporate America enlisted the press in its defense using perhaps the most effective propaganda tool available, communism. The Bolsheviks were now attacked for the Brest-Litovsk Treaty, as well as their views on capitalism. Using the wild claims of the superpatriots groups, church magazines, business and financial journals, the general press struck out against Bolshevism. The term "Bolsheviks" soon became interchangeable with criminals, German agents, anarchists, Wobblies, Socialists and economic imbeciles. In the eyes of the press, there was no difference between a Wobblie and a Bolshevik. Both were tantamount to treason.
Claims made in the press about the Bolsheviks were ludicrous. One particular horror story made the staggering claim that in Petrograd the Bolshevik had an electric guillotine that could behead five hundred people an hour. Bolsheviks were portrayed as wild, bloodthirsty murderers, and analogous to Wobblies.
Perhaps the most astounding aspect of the press' bloodletting of Bolsheviks was in supporting a U.S. intervention force in Russia. Many of the same right-wing forces within the United States that had opposed entry into a war with Germany now supported intervention in Russia. While the overwhelming majority of Americans were isolationists, right-wing pressure was strong enough that President Wilson sent a small contingent of forces into Russia with the limitation that they could not intervene in Russian domestic affairs.49 Tagging along with this contingent of U.S. troops as a missionary was William Dudley Pelly. Pelly would later found the Silver Shirts, a pro-Nazi group.
Combining propaganda from the nations' news media with the dismal plight of labor, the nation was primed for trouble. Three events; the Seattle general strike, the bombings and the Boston police strike triggered the epidemic proportions of hysteria in late 1919.
The first of these events was the Seattle general strike. Pacific Northwest workers had been hit particularly hard by inflation. Seattle had been a hub of wartime shipbuilding, causing a severe dislocation of peacetime industries, housing shortages and extreme inflation. As a result, the Pacific Northwest was a hotbed of activity for the IWW. Even before the shipyard workers walked off the job, area newspapers were busy fielding articles asking whether strikes were for wages or Bolshevism. On January 21, 1919, 35,000 shipyard workers struck in violation of their contract, which had two months to run. The director of the Emergency Fleet Corporation, General Charles Piez, refused to discuss any matters relating to conditions of employment.
On February 3, the Seattle Central Labor Council announced that a general strike in support of the shipyard workers was to begin on February 6. Consequently, Seattle was gripped by mass hysteria. The public, fearful of shortages from the strike, went on a buying frenzy. Drug, department and grocery stores were swamped with customers stockpiling goods. Hardware stores had more orders for guns than they could fill. The Labor Council promptly ran an editorial to calm the hysteria, stating that the Strike Committee would run all industry necessary to the public health and welfare and that law and order would be preserved.
The remaining days until February 6 saw scores of articles in the local media comparing the strike to Bolshevism, further inflaming the public. On the morning of the 6th, 60,000 workmen went out on strike. The unions granted exemptions to garbage trucks, milk trucks and even laundry trucks. At no time during the strike was Seattle left without food, coal, water, heat or light. Even more remarkable was that no violence marred the strike.
Among Seattle's alarmists was its mayor, Ole Hanson. Hanson had been defeated in his Senate race in 1918 and then had ran for mayor. Originally a Republican, Hanson switched to the Progressive Party in 1916 and had supported Wilson. He harbored an intense hatred of the IWW, believing they were at the root of all labor unrest. Hanson's fear reached a fever pitch when the general strike was called. He had no doubt that it signaled the beginning of an attempted revolution which "wanted to take possession of our American government and try to duplicate the anarchy of Russia." Hanson also had no doubt that the man who end this anarchy would have a very promising political career.
At Hanson's request, federal troops from Fort Lewis were dispatched to Seattle on the morning of February 6. Ever the ambitious politician, Hanson personally led the troops into the city with a huge American flag draped over his car. The following day Hanson declared that unless the strike was ended, he would use the troops to crush the strike and operate all the essential enterprises. Hanson's words would frame the hysteria to come later in the year.
"The time has come for the people in Seattle to show their Americanism. The anarchists in this community shall not rule its affairs."51
Seattle's papers continued a barrage of condemnation against the strikers, and called for "no compromise now or ever."51 Facing a wrath of criticism conditioned by the fear of revolution, the strike ended on February 11th with Hanson proclaiming: "The rebellion is quelled, the test came and was met by Seattle unflinchingly."52
For a week, the nation had focused on the Seattle strike with the media inciting the hysteria that would soon erupt. Banner headlines and editorials across the nation labeled the strikers as Reds. The Chicago Tribune warned its readers that "it's only a middling step from Petrograd to Seattle."53
Hanson was not the only politician who saw a bright future in denouncing unionism and strikes as Bolshevism. Minnesota Senator Knute Nelson declared that the Seattle strike posed a greater danger than strikes during the war. Utah Senator William King stated that strike instigators were confirmed Bolsheviks. Washington Representative William King said: "From Russia they came, and to Russia they should be made to go."53
Within a few months of the strike, Ole Hanson resigned as mayor of Seattle and toured the country lecturing on the danger of domestic Bolshevism. The lecture circuit proved financially rewarding; in seven months Hanson netted $38,000, compared to his annual mayoral salary of $7,500.
The Seattle general strike was a fundamental cause of Red Scare hysteria, because it focused America's attention solely on what became to be called radicalism. The media successfully depicted the strikers as Reds. Any strike after Seattle would be framed the same, each with ever increasing hysteria. The most successful propaganda ploy of the right-wing in America had been successfully launched .
Both foreign and domestic events kept the fear of Bolshevism alive for the remainder of February 1919. On February 20, it was reported that French Premier Clemenceau was wounded by a Bolshevik agent. Four days later, Secret Service agents arrested four Wobblies in New York City. The press immediately seized upon the arrests, alleging they were part of a world-wide plot to kill American and Allied officials.
The next month, the Chicago Tribune reported that a plan for planting bombs in Chicago had been uncovered. The following month, the U.S. Department of Justice announced the uncovering of a conspiracy by anarchists in Pittsburgh to seize the arsenal and use the explosives to lay the city in ruins.
It wasn't until April 28 that proof of any bomb plots emerged. On that day Hanson's office in Seattle received a package. Hanson was in Colorado on a Victory Loan tour, and the package was left unopened on a table. The wrapping was torn in transit, and liquid leaked onto the table and caused severe damage. The liquid was an acid, and the package contained a home-made bomb.
The following day, Thomas Hardwick's maid lost both hands when she opened a similar package that exploded. Hardwick was a former senator from Georgia. An alert postal clerk who read of the bombings remembered setting aside 16 similar packages for insufficient postage just days earlier. He located the packages, and notified authorities. All 16 were the same type of bomb that injured Hardwick's maid. An additional 18 bombs were later found in transit. The packages were addressed to, among others, Attorney General Palmer, the Secretary of Labor, Chief Justice Holmes, John D. Rockefeller, J.P. Morgan, and several senators and immigration officials.
The timing of the mailings made it obvious that the bombs were targeted for May Day. The nation was now primed for May Day violence. In Boston, 116 Socialists were arrested when violence erupted during a May Day parade. Not a single non-Socialist was arrested. In New York, riot Soldiers raided the Russian People's House and the offices of The Call, a liberal magazine. Other cities saw similar events. Cleveland erupted in an orgy of violence, with more than 40 socialists injured and another 106 arrested.
The commonly accepted trigger for the resulting mass hysteria was the June 2 bombing of Attorney General Palmer's home. A copy of the anarchist pamphlet, "Plain Words" was found near the doorsteps. Palmer himself was an ambitious politician with an eye on the 1920 presidential nomination. While President Wilson remained healthy, Palmer was held in check, but as the President's health deteriorated, Palmer began to assert more power. It wasn't until the president was bedridden that Palmer was able to unleash his assault on unions and Socialists. Meanwhile, the press was sensationalizing fears of a red scare with each strike.
Along with the bombing of Palmer's residence, the Winnipeg general strike in June further heightened tensions. Just like the Seattle strike, the Winnipeg strike was given the Bolshevik label. Newspapers ran exaggerated headlines to shock the public and harden the public opinion against unions. Further inflaming the public was labor's insistence on the Plumb Plan; a plan for government ownership of the railroads.
By late summer, the public was nearly hysterical with fear of Bolsheviks and unions. As 1919 progressed, each event led to greater anxiety and fear and ratcheted the hysteria level up further. Finally, in late summer, the Boston Police went on strike. Police in other cities had already unionized, but police commissioner and former mayor Edwin Curtis was virulently antiunion. He stated that a police officer could not simultaneously belong to a union and perform his sworn duties. Massachusetts's governor Calvin Coolidge backed Curtis. Coolidge took a hard line towards the striking police officers. Soldiers and volunteers took to the street to police Boston and it was announced that none of the strikers would be rehired. Coolidge's harsh approach to unions immediately placed him in the national spotlight.
In September, coal miners went on strike. With President Wilson's health failing at an alarming rate, Attorney General Palmer argued for invoking an injunction under the Lever Act. Organized labor had supported the Lever Act and its use of injunctions to stop strikes in the event of a war. Wilson had given labor the express promise that the act would never be used during peace. Labor was outraged at the betrayal. Without the approval of the entire cabinet, Palmer invoked the act, and an injunction was issued on October 30 by federal judge Albert Anderson.
With this background the Massachusetts governor's race took on national significance. Coolidge's hard stance in the Boston police strike was fresh in everyone's mind, and Coolidge became the unanimous choice of the Republican Party for reelection. The Boston police strike became the focal point of the race, with the press loudly framing the election as a battle between Bolshevism and law and order. Coolidge won reelection handily with his antiunion message, and would be selected as the vice presidential candidate the following year.
Antiunionism was reaching hysterical levels in the fall of 1919. Newspapers proclaimed that anything other than the open shop was un-American. The antiunion campaign of big business was bearing fruit. Clergymen such as David Burrell of Marble Collegiate Church in New York City claimed that the Bible not only proved that the closed shop was unpatriotic, but also un-christian.54
Clergy and churches that supported the rights of labor soon fell victim to attacks by the superpatriot groups. The National Welfare Council, the Federation for Social Service of the Methodist Church and the Commission on Church and Social Services were singled out for unusually harsh treatment by the superpatriots. Many clergymen supportive of labor came to be labeled "parlor pinks." This was the beginning of the radicalization of religion to the hard-right's viewpoint. Liberal and moderate church leaders were purged.
By the end of 1919, the Red Scare was reaching critical mass. Palmer, ever more confident of his future political achievements, believed the best solution was to deport radicals. Colluding with certain labor department and immigration officials, Palmer assured himself of ever greater success.
Palmer issued orders on December 27 for the FBI to arrange meetings of the groups they had infiltrated for the night of January 2, 1920. Field agents were to obtain all necessary documentation during the raids such as charters, meeting minutes, membership lists, and books. Additionally, no person arrested was to be allowed to communicate with any other person unless Palmer, William Flynn or J. Edgar Hoover granted permission. Palmer had appointed Flynn as the chief of the Bureau of Investigations, the forerunner of the FBI.
The results were spectacular. More than 4000 suspected radicals were arrested in thirty-three U.S. cities. Arrests were often made without warrants. The American citizens arrested were turned over to state authorities for prosecution under syndicalism laws. Prisoners were denied legal counsel and held under inhuman conditions. Brutality by arresting officers and jailers was widespread.
The mass hysteria even reached into the halls of congress where, at the urging of Palmer, seventy sedition bills were introduced. Eventually, cooler heads prevailed, and none of the peacetime sedition bills passed. Nevertheless, many states enacted sedition laws that facilitated the prosecution of the IWW. In New York State, five Socialist Party members of the state legislature were disbarred.
The full extent of the hysteria and the brutality prevalent can best be illustrated by the Centralia Massacre that followed the steel and coal strikes. In 1919, there were only two IWW halls open in the state of Washington; the others had been suppressed or closed by the police or local mobs. The Centralia IWW hall had just reopened after having been raided by a local mob during a Red Cross parade the year before.
On October 20, 1919, a group of local business leaders formed the Centralia Protective Association to safeguard the small town against undesirables. Rumors inside the IWW hall were rampant about the hall being a target for a raid on Armistice Day. On Armistice Day, the parade route led directly past the hall. The Wobblies, seeking to protect themselves from mob violence, stationed armed members inside the hall, across the street and on a hilltop overlooking the street. Parade marchers included the local post of the America Legion led by Warren Grimm, the leading figure in the Centralia Protective Association. At first, it appeared that violence would be averted as the marchers passed the IWW hall, but marchers turned back towards the hall. In the confusion, some Legion members moved towards the hall. In self-defense, the Wobblies opened fire and wounded several legionaries, including Grimm. Another was shot in the head as he burst through the door.
The Wobblies responsible for the shootings were quickly rounded up and placed in jail, with the exception of Wesley Everest, who escaped towards the Skookumchuck River. He was pursued by a posse that overtook him as he attempted to ford the river. Everest refused to surrender and soon emptied his revolver, killing another Legion member. With no ammunition Everest was soon overpowered, beaten and had his teeth knocked out with a rifle butt before being taken to jail.
That night the lights went out in Centralia. Under the cover of darkness, a mob broke into the jail and seized Everest. He was taken to the Chehalis River. En route, one of his captors castrated him. Upon reaching the river, he was dragged from the car pleading for the mob to shoot him. He was hung from the bridge. The rope, however, was too short and his captors hoisted him back up to hang him with a longer rope. Somehow, Everest remained alive through the two attempted hangings. He was hoisted back up a third time, only to be fitted with a still longer rope. The third time, after stomping on his fingers as he desperately clung to the bridge, Everest finally succumbed.
After making sure their work was done, the mob turned their headlights on the dangling body and riddled the corpse with bullets. After several days, Everest was cut down and brought back to town, only to be displayed in the jail as an example to other Wobblies. Since none of the town's undertakers would care for the body, four of Everest's fellow IWW members were forced to dig his grave in potter's field. No inquest was ever held for his death, which was ruled a suicide by the corner. In the end, eight Wobblies were found guilty of murder and imprisoned.
The Centralia Massacre followed a long string of attacks on strikers and unions dating back to at least the post-Civil War era. By 1914, the attacks had become commonplace. On April 20, 1914, in an effort to break a strike against the Rockefeller-owned Colorado Fuel and Iron Company, more than 40 striking miners and their families were murdered in Ludlow, Colorado by the Colorado National Guard and Rockefeller-hired thugs from the Baldwin-Felts detective agency.55 Another massacre of Wobblies occurred in Everett, Washington on November 5, 1916.56
Brutality such as the Centralia Massacre would reach epidemic proportions in 1919. The public had been whipped into a feverish frenzy by the media and superpatriot groups like the American Legion. Superpatriot groups would spring up like mushrooms after a rain and would continue distributing literature through the 1920s.
No group with liberal tendencies would remain untouched. The Lusk Committee branded The Survey, a national liberal oriented magazine, as having the endorsement of revolutionary groups. Other liberal magazines such as The Nation, New Republic, Dial and Public were the subject of similar attacks. The ACLU was condemned as a Bolshevik front. The National League of Women Voters was labeled a tool of radicals. Liberal clergymen were branded as "parlor pinks", as were many teachers with liberal leanings.
The infamous Lusk Committee followed on the heels of the report from the United States Senate Overman Committee. The Overman Committee began hearings on February 11, the day the Seattle general strike ended. The final report spanned 1200 pages and showed little evidence of communist propaganda in the U.S. and even less of an affect on American labor. The immediate cause for the Lusk Committee sprang from a report leaked to the public by prominent New York lawyer Archibald Stevenson. Stevenson was serving in the Military Intelligence division at the time and supplied a list of 62 individuals to the Overman Committee that he had branded as traitors. Stevenson's report on radicalism in New York City concluded that Bolshevism was rampant among New York workmen.
On March 26, the New York legislature appropriated $30,000 for the Lusk Committee and appointed Stevenson as assistant counsel. On June 12, the Justice Department raided the Russian Soviet Bureau. Two tons of propaganda material were hauled off to the Lusk Committee for review. Following the raid, New York State Senator Lusk declared that there were at least fifty radical publications in the city. At the same time New York State Attorney General Charles Newton claimed the Soviet Bureau was the clearing house for all radical activity in the United States.
On June 21, the Lusk Committee again struck again, this time raiding the Rand School and the local IWW office. All documents were seized, but despite vigorous denials from the committee little of value was found. There were no indications of a radical revolution. The committee claimed that documents from the Rand School showed that radicals were in control of at least 100 trade unions. Stevenson even claimed that the documents showed that the Rand School was propagandizing for Blacks.
With no substantiating evidence, Lusk charged that the Rand School was the actual headquarters for Bolshevik radicals and took immediate steps to close the school. The renewal of the school charter was delayed until July 30 when the Supreme Court Justice of New York threw out the case for lack of evidence.75
www.spiritone.com/~gdy52150/1920sp5.html
In 1924, the Hearst papers, the American Legion, and the Ku Klux Klan led the charge for the Americanization" of schoolbooks, loyalty oaths for teachers, and harsher immigration legislation. These three organizations would become deeply tied to fascism in the following decade. Several members of the American Legion were involved in the fascist plot of 1934 against FDR. The Hearst papers would become an open propaganda outlet for the Nazis and fascism. The Klan would go on to form an alliance with the American Bund.
W.J. Simmons, a former Methodist circuit rider from Atlanta, established the second Klan in 1915. The original Klan had died out and disbanded. The second Klan would be disbanded later on, only to be reborn again. In the first four years of rebirth, the Klan was relatively small. Not until 1920 did it grow to mammoth proportions.
Two factors with roots in the late 1800s set the stage for the rebirth of the Klan. The first was massive immigration from Europe. The American Protective Association, formed in 1887, was virulently anti-alien. The group was particularly strong in the Midwest, where the Klan became strong in the 1920s. The other factor was the populist movement of the 1890s which sought to unite blacks and poorer whites against mill owners and the conservative elite of the South.57
The Klan remained relatively small through 1919. It wasn't until Simmons met publicists Edward Young Clarke and Elizabeth Tyler in 1920 that the membership increased, peaking at around 4,500,000. The huge increase in Klan membership was largely a product of the Red Scare. Simmons had a contract with the two, giving them 80 percent of all membership dues. Clarke and Tyler promoted the Klan as rabidly pro-America, anti-black, anti-Jewish, antiunion, and most importantly, anti-Catholic.
The race riots in the summer of 1919 also contributed to the rapid growth of the Klan in 1920. In 1919, race riots occurred in Chicago, Washington DC, Elaine, Arkansas, Charleston, South Carolina, Knoxville and Nashville, Tennessee, Longview, Texas and Omaha, Nebraska. Through the first half of the decade, the Klan would be a serious force in both the North and South.
The message from the new Klan was that it meant business. Many people believe the Klan was just a bunch of racist, hooded night-riders. The reality is that the Klan has always been closely associated with religion. Besides blacks, Jews, and immigrants, the Klan attacked bootleggers, dope dealers, nightclubs and roadhouses, violations of the Sabbath, sex, and so-called scandalous behavior.
The early 1920s saw a rash of lynchings, shootings, and whippings; the victims were most often a Black, Jew, Catholic or immigrant. Additionally, women of scandalous behavior, as determined by the Klan, were subject to abuse. In Alabama, a divorcee was flogged for remarrying. In Georgia, the Klan, led by a minister, administered 60 lashes to a woman for the vague charge of immorality and failure to go to church. In Oklahoma, Klansmen whipped girls found riding in automobiles with young men. In the San Joaquin Valley of California, the Klan flogged and tortured women for morality charges.58
In Chicago, Miss Mildred Erick was beaten almost into unconsciousness, and had crosses carved on her arms, legs, and back by Klansmen. The Klansmen's attack was provoked by her conversion to Catholicism.59
In November, 1921, a case in Asheville, North Carolina became the focus of the national media. The Reverend Abernathy, of the First Christian Church, sent a letter to city officials calling for a purity campaign and the arrest of two women, Etyln Maurice and Helen Garlington, and two black men, Louis Sisney and Maurice Garlington. The women were charged with prostitution, fornication, and adultery. Both women received a sentence of one year in the county jail.59 The campaign was similar to an earlier one in Athens, Georgia launched by the Reverend M.B. Miller of the First Christian Church. Miller headed the Klan in Athens.
There are thousands of examples of women receiving much harsher treatment than the Asheville case. What brought Asheville to national attention is that Asheville was the home of William Dudley Pelly and the Silver Shirts. Many of the regions in which the Klan were strong in the 1920s later became centers of pro-fascist groups in the 1930s. Pelly would later move his Silver Shirt organization to Indiana, an area that had a strong Klan in the 1920s.
With its anti-black, anti-union, anti-communist, anti-socialist, anti-Jew, and extreme nationalist agenda, the Klan's platform was remarkably like that of the Nazis. By the 1930s, the Klan served as a bridge between nativist groups and fascists. On August 18, 1940, the Klan formalized an alliance with the American Bund at the Nazi encampment of Nordland, at Andover, New Jersey. Before this, a Nazi agent had offered former Klan Grand Wizard Hiram Evans $75,000 to control the Klan's voice. When James Colescott succeeded Evans, the Klan entered into its collaboration with the American Bund.
After the alliance with the Bund was formed, the Klan embarked on a plan to infiltrate unions in an effort to Americanize them. After Pearl Harbor, the Klan intensified these efforts, particularly in the Detroit area. Once inside the unions, Klansmen spread pro-fascist literature, and succeeded in provoking wildcat strikes to hinder the war effort. Their efforts went so far as to organize opposition to purchasing war bonds.
Probably the Klan's most successful effort to disrupt the war effort was the Detroit riot. This Klan-inspired riot was an attempt to prevent blacks from occupying their new homes in the Sojourner Truth Settlement, a housing project. The riot caused several deaths, and an interruption of war production. Amplifying its effect, the riot was of tremendous propaganda value to America's enemies. Germany and Japan seized on the riot, and aired lurid broadcasts of it to demoralize American troops.60
Today, one cannot understand the Detroit area without looking at the influence of fascism in the area. The riot was provoked by the Klan which was closely associated with fascism and the Bund at the time. However, there were many other fascist organizations active at the time within the Detroit area. The Black Legion, the Wolverine Republican League, Father Coughlin, and several other fundamentalist ministers of hate as will be shown later in this chapter. Michigan was one of the hot spots for fascism as several of the strongest supporters of fascism within the halls of Congress came from Michigan.
Detroit was not the only riot inspired by the Klan designed to stop war production. Another Klan-inspired race riot occurred on June 15, 1943 in Beaumont, Texas. A mob of over 4,000 attacked the black section of the city, looting stores and burning buildings. Twenty-one people were killed, and production in the area was slowed for months.
Today's modern, or the third Klan formed an alliance with neo-Nazis domestically, and in England, Sweden, Canada, and Australia. An American sergeant stationed in Bitburg served as the Klan's recruiting officer in Germany. Currently, much of the hate and pro-Nazi literature in Germany (where it is illegal) comes from the United States.61
Klan-inspired lynchings and riots were common in the 1920s. Over 450 people were lynched; almost all were black.63 Lynchings became so frequent that Representative L. C. Dyer of Missouri introduced a bill in 1921 to make lynching a federal crime. The bill passed the house but failed in the Senate, due to a filibuster by southern senators. Lynching was not the only method the Klan used to dispose of blacks. On December 9, 1922 a mob in Perry, Florida burnt a black man at the stake after he was accused of murder.64
The most noted act of Klan-inspired violence was in Rosewood, Florida, which was chronicled in a recent film. In January 1923, the tiny town of Rosewood came under attack by a white mob. The mob was incited by a report of a white woman having been assaulted by a black man in the nearby town of Summer. The riot resulted in several residents of Rosewood being murdered, and the black portion of town being burnt to the ground. The black residents, fearing for their lives, fled into the nearby swamps and relocated. No charges were ever filed against the mob, which was reported to have had several Klansmen from outside the area.
Although Rosewood is the most widely known race riot of the 1920s, it was not the bloodiest. The Tulsa, Oklahoma riot of 1920 was far more horrific. A mob of over 10,000, some wielding machine guns, attacked the black section of the city, destroying thirty-five square blocks, and leaving over 300 dead. The mob used at least eight airplanes to spy on the blacks and may have even used the planes to bomb some areas.65
The listing of all the race riots and lynchings of the 1920s would fill several volumes. Many, such as Rosewood, were reported nationally. The Nation reported that the state of Florida was unconcerned about the fate of Negroes. A few northern newspapers decried the massacre, but most adopted a more apologetic view of the Klan and its violence. The Tampa Times justified it by proclaiming that blacks "are anything but a Christian and civilized people." The Gainesville Sun went even further, stating that lynchings would prevail as long as criminal assaults continue on innocent women, and closed the editorial equating the massacre with the death of a dog.
Today, most peoples' image of the Klan is one of a violent gang of racists clothed in bed sheets, and view the Klan as a pariah of some sort. Even with the rise in membership since 1980, the Klan is still a shadow of its former self. However, the real legacy of the Klan is not related to hooded nightriders or cross burnings. Rather, the real legacy is the role the Klan played in developing what now constitutes the religious right.
It was common place in the 1920s for ministers to lead the local Kaverns. The same holds true today. One such example is the Reverend J.M. Drummond, who was the keynote speaker at a Klan rally near Estill Springs, Tennessee on July 7, 1979.66 Drummond is an Identity minister, as is Pete Peters, another minister closely associated with the Klan.
The Identity religion teaches that Aryans are the true Jews of the Bible, and that Jews, Blacks and other minorities are children of Satan. Two of the more influential developers of the Identity religion began their ministries in the 1920s.
The Red Scare of 1919 resulted in the purging of anyone holding even the mildest liberal views, clergy included. With few liberal clergymen remaining, the result was a gigantic chasm into which the Klan and the radical right moved, shifting the spectrum to the far right. The result can still be seen today in the linkage between racism and religion. A study conducted in the 1960s detailed this linkage, and will be presented in a later chapter. Since that study, the linkage has become even more pronounced, with the rise of the Identity religion in recent years.
The evolution of the present religious right from the 1920s Klan can best be shown by the careers of Gerald Winrod and Gerald Smith. In November, 1925 in Salina, Kansas, Winrod established the Defenders of the Christian Faith. The Defenders were extremely conservative, and in April, 1926 Winrod began publishing a monthly magazine, The Defender. Winrod supported prohibition, and was rabidly opposed to the theory of evolution.
The teaching of evolution, as well as the Scopes trial, was one of those issues that become a watershed event in shaping later movements. The teaching of evolution would define what has evolved into the religious right. Although there were fundamentalists before the 1920s, the fundamental religious movement was revitalized and defined by the Scopes trial. In fact, the term "fundamentalist" was coined in the 1920s. Many early fundamentalists, such as John Franklyn Norris, were openly supportive of the Klan. Norris was a Baptist preacher from Texas, and also had a parish in Detroit, flying between the two cities. Norris also ran a seminary, one notable graduate of which was John Birch. Birch's death at the hands of Chinese communist forces in the late 1940s spawned the formation of the John Birch Society in the 1950s.
In 1926, Winrod led a campaign to ban the teaching of evolution locally, as well as in California and Minnesota. He appointed a committee to examine textbooks, and in Minnesota he helped William Bell Riley draft the bill which was introduced in the Minnesota legislator.
[EDITOR: the hypocrisy here is self-evident. Author condemns Social Darwinism based on evolution theory then complains when those who oppose it happen to be hate-filled hypocrites who can't read the Bible correctly and conjure up lies about minorities to perpetuate racism. Reading the Bible wrong is just as wrong as evolution reading reality wrong.]
Riley was a force in the conservative wing of the Baptist Church during the 1920s. Like Winrod, Riley was rabidly opposed to the teaching of evolution, and was also extremely anti-Semitic. In 1934, he published the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and an article on communism, attempting to show they were part of a conspiracy at work in Roosevelt's New Deal. Riley preached:
"Today in our land many of the biggest trusts, banks and manufacturing interests are controlled by Jews. Most of our department stores they own. The motion pictures, the most vicious of all immoral, educational and communistic influences, is their creation."68
The above quote, from one of Riley's sermons, is indistinguishable from Hitler's propaganda. It is a clue that, if Riley was not outright pro-Nazi, he certainly harbored sympathy for fascism.
Riley was not the first clergyman to tout the Protocols. On February 12, 1919, the Reverend George Simons testified in front of the Senate's Overman Committee, shocking listeners with the tale of a secret worldwide Jewish conspiracy. Simons cited the Protocols as evidence. It is generally assumed that Simons obtained his copy of the Protocols from Dr. Harris Houghton of military intelligence. Houghton had obtained his copy from the Czarist immigrant Boris Brasol.17
With his congregation of 3,500, Riley exerted tremendous influence in the upper Midwest. Jewish leaders regarded his church as the center of the area's anti-Semitism. However, Riley's influence extended far beyond his area and time. In 1902, Riley founded Northwestern Bible Training School, which in 1935 became the Northwestern Theological Seminary. He also assisted in the preparation of The Fundamentals, a statement of fundamentalist belief. Just before his death, Riley placed the leadership of Northwestern under the direction of Billy Graham.
On March 2, 2002, the ghost of fascism came home to roost on the head of Riley's chosen successor, Billy Graham. On that day, an additional 500 hours of Nixon tapes were released. In a 1972 conversation between Nixon and Graham, the preacher expressed his contempt for, as he saw it, Jewish domination of the media. Graham is heard on tape saying referring to a Jewish-owned newspaper:
"this stranglehold has got to be broken or this country is going down the drain."
Later in the conversation, Graham expresses further opinions about Jews:
"They swarm around me and are friendly to me. Because they know I am friendly to Israel and so forth. But they don't know how I really feel about what they are doing to this country, and I have no power and no way to control them."74
In response to the new revelations, Graham apologized profusely, claiming a lack of memory of the incident. This latest example of Billy Graham's anti-Semitism should come as no surprise to those that have followed his career. Graham's career has been marked with similar incidents.
In the 1950s, Graham was embroiled in an incident revealing his anti-Semitism. The incident stemmed from his portrait gracing the cover of the January 1957 issue of The American Mercury, and his friendship with the Mercury's owner, Russell Maguire. Maguire had acquired a huge fortune from oil and munitions. Maquire owned the company that made the Thompson submachine gun, and had acquired the Mercury in 1952.
In 1951, Maquire donated $75,000 to Billy Graham to produce a film extolling the virtues of free enterprise and the development of God-given natural resources. The film Graham produced was called Oiltown, USA. Graham continued his friendship with Maguire after producing Oiltown, and wrote several articles for the American Mercury. By the time Graham's portrait graced the Mercury's cover, the magazine had earned a reputation as overtly anti-Semitic and hard right. Maguire and the Mercury were ardently anti-communist, and also called for the abolition of the income tax, the UN, NATO, the ACLU and Zionism. Throughout the 1950s the Mercury, under the guidance of Maguire, supported Senator Joseph McCarthy.
Other writers for the Mercury included J. Edgar Hoover, Ralph de Toledano and George Lincoln Rockwell, founder of the American Nazi Party. De Toledano's resigned from the OSS after refusing to work with liberals. Maguire was an open backer of fascism and fascist organizations, and was an early supporter of Rockwell. Rockwell often complained about Maguire's miserly donations.
By January 1957, the Mercury was at loggerheads with the Anti-Defamation League over charges of anti-Semitism. Despite their public apologies, the religious right and Billy Graham cannot rid themselves of their past support of fascism and anti-Semitism any more than a leopard can change its spots.
Conservative theological circles today still regard Riley highly, carefully sweeping his collaboration with the Jayhawk Nazi, Winrod and his anti-Semitism, under the rug. Yet, anti-Semitism is still present in the Baptist church. Like many right-wing groups, today the Baptist church cloaks its anti-Semitism behind a thin veil. It comes bubbling to the surface in the position the Baptist church has adopted in recent years of reaching out to Jews so they may be converted to Christianity. Jewish leaders describe this program as condescending. It is also manifested in the strong support for Israel due to the misguided beliefs of many of the fundamentalists. The reconstructionists; a sub-branch of the religious right believe the end of the millennium marks the end times and the approaching battle of Armageddon with the conversion of Jews to Christianity.
Winrod's lingering influence and anti-Semitism were also readily apparent in the 1980s in Kansas. At that time, Kansas became a hotbed of support for the Posse Comitatus, a far right-wing, extremely anti-Semitic group. The Posse Comitatus, which was founded by a former Silver Shirt leader, subscribes to the Identity faith.
Nor is this the end of the Winrod continuing influence. In March 2001, Winrod's son Gordon, now age 74, was sentenced to 30 years in prison for kidnapping six of his grandchildren. The children had been living in North Dakota. Windrod's two daughters assisted in their kidnapping and were brought to trial separately. The children have received mental health treatment after being returned to their fathers.
The younger Winrod began buying land in Ozark County, Missouri in the 1960s and eventually opened a church he called Our Savior, in which he preached his hate of the Jews. Winrod's congregation consisted mostly of his adult children and a few followers. Two or three times a year he would mail every resident of the county his Winrod Letter, despite numerous complaints. During his trial he repeatedly referred to the proceeding as a "Jewdiciary."76
The Posse's rise to popularity in the Midwest, and in Kansas in particular, provides another example of how, old prejudices, hate and fascist leanings lingers on for generations. Indeed, racism in Kansas can be traced back prior to the Civil War. Further evidence of Winrod's lingering influence on Kansas is seen in the 1999 attempt by the Kansas Board of Education to ban the teaching of evolution.
Although Winrod claimed he was not a member of the Klan, he did nothing to oppose the group.69 During the 1920s an estimated 100,000 residents of Kansas were Klan members. In the 1924 race for governor, both Democratic and Republican candidates sought the Klan's support. There was a solid base of support in Kansas at the time for candidates that attacked Catholics and Jews. Winrod would depend on that base in his later run for senator.
It wasn't until the 1930s that Winrod adopted full-blown fascism as his ideology. After 1934, Winrod accepted the Nazi's justification for their anti-Semitic policies. His view was that the Nazis were only acting to save Germany from Jewish radicalism, economic exploitation and racial lust. In 1935, Winrod called Hitler a devout Catholic.69 Eventually, Winrod was indicted for sedition in the 1940s.
An even more direct link between the 1920s and today's far right groups can be established by tracing the origin of the Identity religion. The Identity religion is based on racial hatred, and has been adopted by many current far right groups including the Aryan Nations, the Posse Comitatus, various Klan klaverns and militias.
Reuben Sawyer, the pastor of Portland, Oregon's East Side Christian Church, was the first to combine the Klan with Identity religion. Sawyer was instrumental in the British Israel Federation, and during the 1920's was a popular speaker in the Pacific Northwest. It was out of the British Israel Federation that the Identity religion emerged. Sawyer was a leader of the Klan in Oregon, and the founder of its women's auxiliary. Besides being the first to combine the Klan and what was to become the Identity religion, Sawyer was the first to combine anti-Semitism with anti-communism, as the following quote illustrates:
"Jews are either Bolshevists, undermining our government, or are shylocks in finance or commerce who gain control and command of Christians as borrowers or employers. It is repugnant to a true American to be bossed by a sheenie. And in some parts of America the Kikes are so thick that a white man can hardly find room to walk on the sidewalk. And where they are so thick, it is Bolshevism they are talking. Bolshevism, and revolution"70
It was from such views that the Identity religion developed. Among those credited with its founding was a young minister, Gerald Smith. Smith began his ministries in Soldier's Grove, Wisconsin, by revitalizing a Disciples of Christ congregation. In 1923, Smith accepted a pulpit at the Seventh Christian Church in Indianapolis. He soon built the congregation to over 1,000. At the time, the Christian Evangelist noted that Smith a prominent figure among the Hoosier Disciples. As the 1920's progressed, he moved to other pulpits in the Indianapolis area. In 1929, he left Indiana for the Kings Road Christian Church in Shreveport, Louisiana.
While at the Kings Road church, he worked with the Klan, not against it. Smith's self-promotion and social activism soon alienated many of his wealthy backers. Soon, Smith aligned himself with one of the most notorious fascists of the time, Huey Long. In 1934, he resigned his pulpit at Kings Road to work with Long's Share the Wealth organization. In 1936, Smith endorsed Eugene Talmadge, the racist governor of Georgia, for reelection, and also aligned himself with another well-known fascist, Francis Townsend.
In 1939, Smith met Merwin Hart, head of Utica Mutual Life, and soon received support from the New York Economic Council. No doubt, Smith's campaign against the CIO figured prominently in the decision to support him. Living in Michigan at the time, Smith began broadcasting on WJR, a station owned by an enemy of Roosevelt. There he received further support from such leading industrialists as the Dodge and Olds brothers. In 1938, he supported the campaign of Arthur Vandenberg, a senator with fascist leanings. Smith also cultivated a friendship with Henry Ford.
In 1942, the FBI received a tip that Winrod helped Smith start The Cross and Flag, a notorious fascist publication that continued well into the 1960s. Following WWII, Smith moved to California, and founded what has become the Identity religion. In the 1960s, Smith moved to Arkansas, and started several grandiose projects, one of which, the Christ of the Ozarks, was completed in 1966. It was soon followed by a Bible museum.
Smith's legacy is his founding of the Identity religion, a religion based solely on hate, teaching that Aryans are the true Jews of the Bible, and that Jews and other minorities are children of Satan. The Identity religion has became almost universal among far right groups today. It acts as the glue holding the various factions of the far right together and to justify their hate.
www.spiritone.com/~gdy52150/1920sp6.html
There was a more sinister aspect that aroused alongside racism in the early part of the 20th Century, that of eugenics. Eugenics as it was applied in the 1920s can be defined as the creation of the prefect Aryan race and the elimination of all inferior individuals and races. Sometimes preceding racism, and at others lagging, eugenics generally paralleled the development of racism in the 1920s. Both are so intertwined in America that they are impossible to separate. The tentacles of eugenics were spread far and wide in the 1920s and 1930s. IQ tests were developed as an offshoot of the eugenics movement, as was Planned Parenthood. Moreover, eugenic laws passed in the United States served as model laws for the Nazi Nuremberg Laws. Most Americans have little understanding or an incorrect understanding of the eugenics movement. Indeed its association with the Nazis and the Holocaust has distorted the true nature of the movement as surviving groups sought to distance themselves from a movement associated with the Nazis. Almost all Americans incorrectly assume that the movement died beside the Third Reich. Such an assumption is not only wrong, but also dangerous, as the eugenics movement is still alive and well today.
Author Edwin Black has traced the origins of eugenics back to biblical times and the Judeo-Christian concept of charity. After the Roman Empire adopted Christianity, the Canones Arabicia Nicaeni mandated the expansion of hospitals and other institutions for the needy in 325 A.D. Such institutions were needed in England and the church supplied them. During the early 1500s, agriculture underwent a change in England from small estate farming to large expansive estate farming, idling thousands of small estate farmers and contributing their numbers to the masses of needy. In 1530, King Henry VIII seized church property for the church's refusal to allow his marriage to Catherine of Aragon. Charity had now become a state responsibility. Although tending to the needs of the poor was expensive, the alternative of riots and revolutions was less appealing to the nobility.
By the end of the century, a distinct pauper class had emerged in England. Compulsory poor law taxes were assessed to each community to pay for housing the poor. The pauper class was viewed largely as arrogant and ripe for riots or revolution. The problems of the pauper class were only compounded by the advancing Industrial Revolution. Along with the Industry Revolution, the poor became concentrated in urban slums. Sweatshops sprung up to exploit the cheap area. For three hundred years after King Henry, numerous reforms were made in England's poor laws. The ruling class became ever more resentful of being taxed to support the poor. By the 1800s, the ruling elite looked down on the poor as subhuman.
In 1798, Thomas Malthus, an English economist, published a watershed theory on the nature of poverty and the social economic system at play. Malthus concluded that while the population was growing at a geometric rate, the food supply was only increasing at a linear rate. As a result of his theory, he called for population control. Malthus continued that charity promoted generation to generation poverty. Many of those that supported Malthus ignored his complaints of an unjust social economic system and instead embraced the rejection of the value in helping the poor.
The same claim has been the mainstay of the Republican Party ever since the 1980s. Throughout the Great Depression of the 1930s there was no shortage of food, coal, or any of the necessities for a normal living standard for everybody. There wasn't even a money shortage. In short, the depression was the result of an inequitable distribution of wealth with no means of delivering the food to the hungry other than through private charity soup kitchens that were overwhelmed.
In the 1850s, Herbert Spencer published Social Statics. Spencer argued that man and society followed the laws of science and not the laws of a caring God. He popularized the familiar term: "survival of the fittest." He argued that the fittest would continue to prosper while the poor would become more impoverished until they died out naturally. Spencer denounced charity and aid to the poor. In 1859, Charles Darwin published Origin of Species. In 1863, Spencer published Principles of Biology in which he argued that heredity is under the control of physiological units. In 1886, Gregor Mendel published his classic experiments with peas from which he constructed a predictable heredity system.
The basis for eugenics was now firmly established. In 1869, Francis Galton, the father of eugenics, published Hereditary Genius. Galton had never finished his medical studies at London's King College, but instead had studied mathematics at Cambridge where he became a devotee of the emerging field of statistics. Galton distinguished himself by recognizing patterns. In his publication, Galton had studied the genealogies of eminent scholars, artists and military men. He found that many of them were descendents of the same family and concluded the frequency was too impressive to ignore. Galton then concluded that not only physical characteristics were hereditary, but mental, emotional and creative qualities were also hereditary. Further, Galton reasoned that talent and quality could be sharpened by judicious marriages in a few generations into a race of highly gifted individuals. Galton suggested that by selective breeding of the very best, mankind could evolve into a superlative species. Galton hoped to develop a regulated marriage process where members of the finest families were only married to carefully chosen spouses.
Galton had developed a protoscience in search of vindicating data. Galton's ideas of marriage became known as positive eugenics. However, by the time the 20th Century arrived, a new form of eugenics had developed. Called negative eugenics, it called for the sterilization of the unfit. The spotlight of eugenics was soon to shift from England to the United States, where it immediately took on a racist characteristic.
Breeding humans had been part of America from before colonial days, in the slave trade. Only the strongest could survive the journey from Africa. On their arrival the slaves would be paraded about on the auction block so they could be physically examined. Following the Civil War, America was primed for eugenics. In 1865, in upstate New York the utopian Onedia Community declared in a headline that human breeding should be the foremost question in that age. As news of Galton's work reached American shores a few years later, the Oneida community began its first human breeding experiment with fifty-three female and thirty-eight male volunteers.
As the number of emigrants from eastern and southern Europe increased, as the new century approached, eugenics became more popular as a means to purify American society. However, one would be amiss to blame the rise of eugenics in America solely on the massive immigration during the last half of the 19th Century. Contributing to its rise was a good deal of racism and group hatred. American Indians were being isolated on reservations. Such isolation of groups deemed as unfit became a cornerstone of negative eugenics. In the southwest, a great deal of race hatred stemmed from the Mexican-American war and the absorption of thousands of Mexicans in the territory ceded to the Untied States. On the west coast, the race hatred took the form of the Chinese Exclusion Act barring immigration from China and blocking naturalization of those already here. In the south, race hatred reached a feverish peak, and a network of Jim Crow laws were past to keep society pure.
In 1891, Victoria Woodhull, a leading feminist of the day, published a pamphlet, The Rapid Multiplication of the Unfit. The pamphlet called for both positive and negative eugenics. In 1896, former census director Francis Walker published the article, "Restriction of Immigration" in Atlantic Monthly, calling for restricted immigration before the nation committed racial suicide in response to the rising tide of immigration of non Anglo-Saxons. Roughly eighteen million immigrants arrived between 1890 and 1920.
By the turn of the century, women were still barred from voting. Racial hatred was the norm. Native Americans had been segregated on reservations Blacks and Asians were considered second class citizens and undesirables. Vigilantes often dispensed what passed for justice at the end of a hangman's rope. From 1889 until 1918, 3,224 people were lynched. More often than not, the victim was black although 702 of the victims were white. Moreover, the hangings were carried out for trivial reasons such as staring at a white girl, offensive language, or other such minor infractions.92
Eugenics would soon become a cure all for society's problems. Criminal analysis would move racial hatred and criminal behavior into the realm of heredity and eugenic cleaning. Disease and physical afflictions, such as tuberculosis and epilepsy, were also considered hereditary disorders.
One of the first benefactors of eugenics in the United States was the Carnegie Institute. Following an infusion of bonds and other assets totaling $14 million from the founder in 1901, the Institute was re-chartered by a special act of congress in 1904. Under the charter, the institute was established to be one of the premier scientific organizations of the world. Twenty-four eminent individuals from science, government and finance were selected as trustees including Elihu Root, Cleveland Dodge, and John Billings. John Merriam was appointed president of the institute. The institute soon added a new science to their principal areas of investigations, negative eugenics.
Charles Davenport would soon emerge as the driving force behind the American eugenics movement. Davenport was a sad character with a Harvard degree in zoology. He came from a long line of Congregational ministers. His father was a real estate man and had founded two churches and was a deacon in one and an elder in the other. He raised his family harshly, forcing family members into long hours of Bible study.
Davenport approached the Carnegie Institute in 1902 to fund a study of evolution at the biological experiment station at Cold Spring Harbor where he worked. In 1903, Davenport approached the American Breeders Association (ABA), a group created by the Association of Agricultural Colleges and Experimental Stations. He was elected to the five-person permanent oversight committee. Davenport was also successive in pushing the ABA into adopting the views of negative eugenics. In 1904, the Carnegie Institute formally inaugurated the evolution center at Cold Spring Harbor with Davenport as director.
Davenport's work impressed the wealthy elite of New England and soon attracted more funding from the Carnegie Institute and additional funding from Mary Harriman, the widowed heir to the railroad fortune of E.H. Harriman. Others that jumped aboard the movement included Henry Ford, John Kellogg, Clarence Gamble, J.P. Morgan, and E.B Scripps.
Davenport soon enlisted the help of Harry Laughlin, a schoolteacher from Missouri. Laughlin, like Davenport was a minister's son. Davenport structured the Eugenics Records Office to further enable Laughlin's career. Laughlin was soon at work at the eugenic records office at Cold Spring Harbor. He first set about to identify the most defective and undesirable Americans, which he estimated to be about ten percent of the population. He toured Sing Sing and obtained the records of the inmates to prove for all times criminal behavior was hereditary. After obtaining the records from Sing Sing, Loughlin proceeded to tour New York's State Asylum to obtain the records of those committed. He also toured the Connecticut school for the feeble minded for the records of their charges. Laughlin then set about training field workers to generate additional eugenics records. Besides targeting criminals and the feeble-minded, Laughlin targeted epileptics as well.
In early May 1911, the ABA created a special committee to study the best practical means of cutting off the defective germ-plasma of the American population. The stage was now set for removing the undesirables. Laughlin was appointed secretary of the committee. The advisory panel included Dr. Alexis Carrel of the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, the chief of the Bureau of Statistics, O. P. Austin, and immigration expert Robert DeCouncy Ward among other prominent advisors.
In mid July 1911, the special committee met in Manhattan and systematically plotted a campaign to purge the blood of American people of the deteriorating influence of these undesirable anti-social classes. Ten classes of the socially unfit were identified. The classes were as follows in the rank given by the committee: feeble minded, pauper, alcoholics, criminals including petty criminals, epileptics, the insane, the constitutionally weak, those predisposed to certain diseases, the deformed, and finally the blind and deaf. Not only did the ABA target the individuals afflicted, but also targeted their extended families as well. The group agreed that sterilization of the extended families was desirable.
The eugenic committee had endorsed a very ambitious plan. The plan prioritized the sterilization of those receiving custodial care, including those in poor houses, insane asylums, prisons, and any others under state care. This group contained approximately one million people. The plan called for the further sterilization of borderline cases of some seven million people deemed by the ABA to be totally unfit to become useful parents or citizens. The estimated eleven million people targeted for the first wave was more than ten percent of the population. After the first wave was completed, the plan called for the sterilization of the extended families of those deemed unfit.
Moreover, the committee sought to bypass the court system in ordering the sterilization. They attempted to define the sterilization as a police function. In their view, once a eugenic board had ordered the sterilization of an individual, the police would simply enforce the decision. Additionally, Laughlin and his committee suggested polygamy and systematic mating to increase the bloodline of the desirables and draconian laws preventing births from any deemed unfit. They called for restrictive marriage laws, forced segregation of undesirables, and compulsory birth control. Nor did they confine their views to just the United States; they envisioned a global movement.
It was only a short step from theory to implementing the plan. The sterilization of undesirables first occurred outside the law and paralleled the development of eugenics. The first cases of sterilization occurred in Kansas, where F. Hoyt Pitcher surgically asexualized fifty-eight children confined in the Kansas Home for the Feebleminded during the 1890s. Kansas's citizens denounced the doctor, and he was reluctantly removed by the board of trustees. The board staunchly defended Pitcher and defended his work. The doctor did not face any charges.
About the same time, Dr. Harry Clay Sharp was castrating inmates at the Indiana Reformatory to cure convicts of masturbation. Again, the procedure was conducted outside of the law. In 1899 Sharp read an article in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA). The article, written by Dr. Albert Ochsner advocated the sterilization of all convicts with vasectomies. After reading the article, Sharp performed the procedure on scores of inmates without anesthetics.93
[EDITOR: Dr. Albert Ochnser was the fascist uncle who mentored Dr. Alton Ohsner
www.ochsnerjournal.org/doi/full/10.1043/1524-5012%282001%29003%5B0223%3AAOMCSA%5D2.0.CO%3B2
...who ran a CIA biowarfare lab in New Orleans connected to the JFK assassination.
www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKochsner.htm ]
By 1906, Sharp claimed to have performed 206 vasectomies, even though the procedure was still not legal. While Sharp was very influential in the passage of Indiana's sterilization law, he was by no means alone. Reverend Oscar McCulloch, the pastor of the Indianapolis's Plymouth Congregational Church, was a leading reformer and advocate of public charity while harboring a deep hate for the poor. Indiana law specified a compulsory servitude for its paupers. They could be farmed out to the highest bidder. MuCulloch performed his own genealogical survey of Indiana's wandering tribe of paupers called the Tribe of Ishmael. MuCulloch's survey of the Tribe of Ishmael quickly became a centerpiece of eugenics studies. MuCulloch preached to his congregation that the paupers were parasites and preordained to be nothing more.
The reader maybe wondering about a connection between religion and eugenics as three of the most influential people in the early development of eugenics came from deep religious backgrounds: Laughlin, Davenport, and MuCulloch. While there were a large number of evangelical ministers that served as officers in the eugenic movement, and more were members, the connection seems more informal than formal and dependent solely upon the individual minister involved. At the same time, few ministers spoke out against eugenics and those that did so waited until the 1930s, after eugenics had been discredited and associated with the Nazis. The connection between eugenics, the Klan, and religion is an area open to further research.
David Jordan, president of the University of Indiana, lectured his students that paupers were indeed parasites. In 1902, in his book Blood of a Nation he first proposed the concept of blood as the immutable basis for race. Jordan left Indiana to accept a position as the first president of Stanford University.94
In addition to Jordan and MuCulloch, Indiana's State Board of Health was headed by Dr. J. N. Hurty, a staunch believer in eugenics. Hurty would later rise to become head of the American Public Health Association. In 1907, at the repeated urging of Sharp and Hurty, Indiana became the first state to pass eugenic laws calling for the sterilization of undesirables. Indiana, however, was not the first state to have had eugenic sterilization laws introduced in the legislator. Sterilization laws were first introduced in the Michigan legislator in 1905, and again in Pennsylvania in 1906. Both measures failed, however, the Indiana law was modeled on the Pennsylvania bill. The bill passed the Indiana House by a margin of 59 to 22 and the Senate by 28 to 16 votes. The vote was proceeded by little debate in both chambers.
In 1909, Oregon's Governor George Chamberlain vetoed a sterilization bill noting that's it didn't require enough safeguards. Moreover, eugenic sterilization laws failed in several other states in 1909, including another attempt in Michigan and a first attempt in Wisconsin. However, sterilization laws did pass in three states in1909. Washington State passed a bill mandating sterilization of habitual criminals and rapists. Connecticut passed a law allowing the medical staff to examine patients of two asylums for the feebleminded and their family trees to determine if the patients should be sterilized. California enacted a bill that allowed castration or sterilization of convicts and residents of the state home for the feebleminded.
In the next two years, additional states passed eugenic sterilization laws. Iowa passed perhaps the most inclusive law, allowing the sterilization of criminals, idiots, feebleminded, imbeciles, drunkards, drug fiends, epileptics, and moral or sexual perverts. Nevada, New Jersey and New York were among the states to pass sterilization laws.
Nonetheless, the American Breeders Association and the Eugenic Record office remained frustrated with the progress of eliminating undesirables from the gene pool. Although several states now had laws allowing for forced sterilization, few people were ever sterilized. Only in California, where more than two hundred were sterilized, had the law been applied to more than a couple individuals. Moreover, public sentiment for the enforcement of the sterilization laws was lacking across the nation.
Following the death of Galton in 1911, the First Eugenic Conference was organized to be held in London. Winston Churchill was scheduled to introduce the king at the conference and was reportedly concerned about the rising number of people judged to be mental defects. The organizers wanted the Secretary of State, P.C. Knox to send an official delegation. However, the state department could not comply because the conference was a non-governmental meeting. However, Knox did send official invitations to prominent American leaders on official letterhead. Knox, who had been a former lawyer for Carnegie Steel, effectively used the state department as the eugenics post office. American racial theories dominated the conference held at the University of London.
The next big stride forward for the American eugenic movement came with the U.S. entry into WWI. Officials struggled with the task of classifying the three million draftees. Robert Yerkes, president of the American Psychological Association, gathered other eugenic activists around him and pleaded for intelligence testing of the new draftees. They developed two tests for the army, the beta test for those that could read and write English, and a pictorial alpha test for those that could not read. The questions centered largely on pop culture. Hence, urbanites could pass the exam easily, while draftees coming from rural population, and isolated from theaters and large cities with the newest consumer items, failed the test miserably. Even the questions in the pictorial tests were drawn from the latest pop culture. In the pictorial test, the subject was to draw in what was missing. One such question featured a picture of a bowling lane and the subject was expected to pencil in the missing bowling ball. America was still largely rural with many areas almost isolated as the only means of transportation at the time depended upon the railroads and horses. With such questions, one can easily see why a large number of rural recruits failed the exam. Predictably, the results were dismal: 47 percent of all whites failed and 89 percent of all Blacks failed. However, Yerkes claimed that feeblemindedness was the lowest in the following Anglo groups: 0.1 percent in the Dutch, 0.2 percent in Germans and less than 0.05 percent in Swedes.95
The war years proved fruitful for eugenics. During those years, eugenic groups proliferated in America. The Race Betterment Foundation, founded by Dr. John Kellogg, was organized in 1914. Kellogg was a member of the state board of health. The newly founded group attracted some of the most radical elements in the eugenic movement.
The next big advance for eugenics came on May 2, 1927, in a Supreme Court ruling of Buck v Bell. The case revolved around Carrie Buck and the sterilization law of Virginia.
Previously, Carrie's mother, Emma had been confined to the home for the feebleminded shortly after WWI. After the war, Virginia had a well establish program of sweeping social outcasts into homes for the feebleminded. Carrie's mother was a widow. She also was destitute and had been convicted of prostitution, making her an ideal candidate for the home of the feebleminded. She would remain in the home for the rest of her life.
Carrie had been her only child while she was married and was placed in another family. Her school records showed she was a good student. The Dobbses family, with whom she was living, withdrew her from school when she reached sixth grade. In 1923, Carrie became pregnant. She claimed it was rape, but the Dobbses would not listen to her explanations and filed commitment papers, declaring Carrie to be feebleminded.
In 1924, Virginia passed a sterilization law for the feebleminded. The case attracted the attention of Laughlin and other prominent individuals from the eugenic movement. To further their efforts and strengthen their court case, they had Carrie's child declared feebleminded at the age of three. Eventually, the case reached the Supreme Court with the Chief Justice being William Howard Taft. Only one justice ruled against sterilizing Carrie, Justice Pierce Butler. The opinion written by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. concluded with words that still echo throughout time; "Three generations of imbeciles are enough."96
With the sterilization of Carrie Buck and the Supreme Court ruling upholding the decision, the eugenics movement had surpassed a milestone. From the passage of Indiana's sterilization law until the Buck ruling, many states that had passed sterilization laws refrained from using it. Of the twenty-three states that had passed sterilization laws, Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, South Dakota and Utah had recorded no sterilizations. Idaho and Washington State had recorded just one each. Delaware recorded five cases. Kansas had recorded 335, Nebraska 262, Oregon 313 and Wisconsin 144. California, however, recorded 4636 cases.
Many states had simply been waiting for the ruling in the Buck case before proceeding with sterilizations. From 1907 until 1940, the totals increased at a horrific rate. In North Carolina 1017 cases of forced sterilization were recorded. Michigan recorded 2145, Virginia recorded 3924, and California recorded 14568. In total, no less than 35878 people were sterilized, most of them after the 1927 court ruling.97
Throughout the 1920s the eugenics movement attracted people from diverse causes. The leading proponent of birth control, Marget Sanger, was committed to Social Darwinism and eugenics. Through her efforts, she turned her noble movement into a tool for the eugenic movement. Through her radical oratory and her publication, Birth Control Review, she help to legitimize the appeal of eugenics.
Another leading figure of the time, Lucien Howe, a pioneering ophthalmologist, was also attracted to the eugenic movement. Howe was one of the leading experts in blindness and was well aware that hereditary blindness was rare and not a leading cause of blindness. However, Howe advocated the sterilization of the blind and the banning of marriage of anyone blind. Moreover, Howe also lead the charge that the sterilizations should not be confined to just the blind person, but extended to their relatives.
With the gathering strength of the eugenic movement, Harry Laughlin sought to integrate the movement inside various government agencies. One long-standing target for Laughlin was the Census Bureau. The Bureau, however, would not cooperate with the eugenic movement. In the 1920s the bureau turned a blind eye towards Laughlin's suggestion that each person should be classified by race, such as German Jew or Dutch Jew. However, the Census Bureau did allow Laughlin to conduct a survey of those in state custodial and charitable facilities, as well as jails.
Unable to gain further inroads into the Census Bureau, Laughlin turned to other government agencies. He found ready acceptance in Virginia, largely due to Walter Plecker, the registrar of vital statistics. Plecker was an extreme racist. Plecker would soon use his hatred of race mixing, or mongrelization, of the white race by lesser races into one of the nation's most restrictive marriage laws. With the help of Anglo-Saxon clubs, the 1924 Virginia legislator passed the Racial Integrity Act, declaring anyone having blood that was more than one-sixteenth non-white as a non white. Originally, the act called for one sixty-fourth, but was amended in the legislator because too many of the leading families of Virginia boasted of having Indian blood. The penalty for falsely registering one's race was a year in jail.
Plecker was particularly incensed by the reduction of Indian blood. His fury was further inflamed when Congress granted citizenship to all Indians not already naturalized less than two weeks from the passage of Virginia's Racial Integrity Act. Plecker believed that the problem stemmed from Indians mixing with both whites and blacks and that under the act, they could then claim exemption based on their Indian blood. Most of Virginia's Indian population were poor and lived in rural areas, making them an easy target for reclassification as Negroid, despite vigorous protest. In one case, Plecker ruled that if a comb passed through the hair of an individual, that person would be classified as Indian if not as Negroid. The comb test was perhaps as good as any other method Plecker used in reclassifying Virginia's native Americans. He used his racist tactics to expunge the Indian as a racial classification in Virginia.
While for the most part the eugenic movement was unable to penetrate the federal government and affect policy decision, the most notable exception was the immigration law. Since 1890, the American eugenicists considered the immigrants arriving from Europe to be genetically inferior. Their fears were enhanced by the mass number of the people fleeing Europe. More than eight million immigrants arrived between 1900 and 1909. The newly arrived came mostly from southern and eastern Europe. A large number of them were Catholic and Jewish. The influx of immigrants contributed to the urbanization of the country. The 1920 census revealed for the first time that more people lived in urban rather than rural areas. The resulting reapportionment of the legislator would be hard fought. The House increased the number of representatives to 415 to preserve as much as possible the old districts and power structure. The Red Scare and the rise of the Klan added further fuel to the fury.
A key figure in the success of the eugenicists in changing immigration policy was Albert Johnson. Johnson had been raised at the northern edge of the Mason Dixon line in Illinois during the turbulent Reconstruction period. He later became a big city newspaperman before moving to the small town of Hoquiam, Washington. It was from here that Johnson ran for congress and was elected to the House in 1912. Johnson was a fanatic racist and eugenicist. In 1919, he began a twelve-year tenure as chairman of the Immigration and Naturalization subcommittee in the House.
While there had been restrictions in immigration prior to Johnson's chairmanship, the restrictions were reactionary in nature and not eugenically motivated. Johnson viewed any immigration as a negative factor. One of his first actions was to appoint Laughlin as his eugenic expert before his committee. Laughlin and other eugenicists had long urged the classification of immigrants along strict biological and racial lines, as well as advocating intelligence testing of immigrants before they left Europe. Their goal was to restrict immigration based on quotas before the mass arrivals started in 1890.
Laughlin's inflammatory rhetoric helped along by funding from the Carnegie Institute, began producing results in congress. Due to the political explosiveness of the issue, congress wavered back and forth. In 1923, Labor Secretary James Davis signaled a willingness to cooperate in setting up an overseas eugenic network. Laughlin then toured Europe as a special immigration agent. In 1924, President Calvin Coolidge signed the Immigration Act of 1924. The act called for vast changes in immigration. For instance, the Italian quota had been cut from 42,000 per year to just 4,000. The act limited immigration to just two percent of the reported national origin of the 1890s census. Thus the eugenicists were successful in rolling back immigration to the 1890. However, the act produced a firestorm in congress, as many argued the validity of the data used to set the quotas. Thus the act required that the Census Bureau report to a quota board their methodology in establishing the base figures. The quota board was made up of Secretary of Commerce Herbert Hoover, Secretary of State Frank Kellogg and Secretary of Labor, James Davis. In 1927, the quota board submitted a letter to President Coolidge, cautioning that the figures were not entirely satisfactory.
Laughlin was only partially successful in setting up his European testing centers. The system was installed in Belgium, England, Ireland, Holland, Poland, Italy, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Germany, and Sweden. The system, on average, eugenically inspected roughly eighty percent of would-be immigrants from those countries and rejected about 88 applicants out of every 1000 as mentally or physically defective. However, Laughlin's inspections were short lived due to a shortage of funding and governmental objections from Europe.
Nevertheless, Laughlin's major achievement in establishing eugenics as part of immigration was the passage of the 1924 Immigration Act and the establishment of quotas. Both stood as national policy until 1952.98
The American Breeders and the Eugenic Society were not content with just sterilization and segregation methods as a means to eliminate the defective. By 1910, they were also proposing euthanasia using a lethal chamber. The so-called lethal chamber was the forerunner of the modern gas chamber and was believed to be humane. Euthanasia was listed as the eighth of nine methods of eliminating the defectives from society. While many prominent, professional people in both medicine and psychology came to advocate euthanasia, one noted exception was Margaret Sanger. Others within her birth control movement however, were advocates.
On November 12, 1915, euthanasia and eugenics became front-page news across the country. Dr. Harry Haiselden had refused to provide treatment for a newborn baby suffering from extreme intestinal and rectal abnormalities. There was a question if the baby could be saved. Nonetheless, the Dr. withheld treatment. Emboldened by some favorable press coverage, the Dr. admitted to previously to euthanizing others. Haiselden later brought to light the case of the Illinois Institution for the Feebleminded in Lincoln. Patients were fed milk from Lincoln's own herd of cows that were known to be harboring tuberculosis. Eugenicists believed death from tuberculosis was the result of defective genes.
However, the real story behind the gates of this home for the feebleminded was euthanasia by neglect and was repeated across the nation in hundreds of other such homes. The real story lies hidden in the records of Lincoln's staggering death rates. Between 1904 and 1909 the death rate of residents was as high as 12 percent. Often after being admitted as many as 30 percent of the epileptic children died within eighteen months. A large number of the residents of Lincoln died before reaching the age of ten. In 1930, the life expectancy of those judged to be feebleminded was just 18.5 years; today the rate for those that are mentally retarded is 66.2 years.100
This method of euthanasia through benign neglect was all too common throughout America during the 1920s and 1930s. In fact, it is still commonplace in America today where adequate health care has now became a luxury only affordable by the wealthy. An excellent example exists in the case of Legionnaire's disease. The discovery of the disease occurred in 1976, when an outbreak of the disease occurred among the attendees of an American Legion celebration of the bicentennial. The outbreak caused numerous deaths and a near panic. It took researchers over six months to determine the bacteria responsible for the outbreak. Nevertheless, further investigation of blood samples saved from other deaths by the researchers showed that a previous outbreak of the disease had occurred in 1965 at St. Elizabeth's Psychiatric Hospital in Washington when fourteen patients died.
The St. Elizabeth's case and the Legionnaire's convention in Philadelphia reveal what is all too commonplace throughout America, both in the past and present. The poor and weak are widely regarded as expendable. The Legionnaires were upright citizens and voters, while the residents of St Elizabeth were viewed as expendable. Thus, the deaths of the Legionnaires demanded an investigation, while the deaths at St. Elizabeth were checked off as routine.99
While the deaths at St. Elizabeth were not the result of a conscious decision to eliminate the inferior, the benign neglect present in today's society that is prevalent among the right-wing in America towards the poor and weak. It serves the same purpose as the eugenic euthanasia ideas of bygone days. Further, it provides society with a guiltless solution and the excuse of not being aware of what was going on, just like the German citizens living next to a concentration camp.
As mentioned earlier, the American eugenic movement began to attract global attention at the First Eugenic Conference in London. In fact, the conference was dominated by the American views of race and eugenics. Plans for further conferences had been made there. The second conference was held in Paris. Again, plans were made for another conference, but World War I interfered and the conference was postponed.
Following the war, Germany would not cooperate with the International Federation of Eugenic Organization because of bitter animosity remaining between Germany and England, France, and Belgium. However, German eugenicists' bonds with Davenport remained firm, due largely to the generous funding of German eugenic research by the Rockefeller Foundation and the Carnegie Institute. Both organizations lavished ample funds on the German eugenicists while Americans stood in bread lines. American laws soon became inspiration for the German racists. One of the German racist hate mongers that took note of the American laws was Adolf Hitler. While confined in prison for the Beer Hall Putsch, Hitler studiously read eugenic textbooks that quoted Davenport and other American eugenicists. Hitler's publisher was Germany's most prominent eugenic publisher. The president of the American Eugenic Society received a letter from Hitler praising the publishing of The Passing of the Great Race by Madison Grant. The book called for eliminating the unfit. In the letter, Hitler described the book as his Bible.101
While it would be unwise to attribute Hitler's extreme racist view towards Jews to the American eugenic movement, nonetheless by cloaking his racism under the disguise of science, Hitler was able to attract additional followers that would have otherwise remained neutral. The intellectual view of eugenics that Hitler adopted was strictly from the American eugenic movement. One of the books that Hitler studied was Foundation of Human Heredity and Race Hygiene, written by three American eugenicists. In Germany, the book was published by Julius Lehmann. Lehmann was at Hitler's side during the Beer Hall Putsch. It was also Lehmann's villa where Bavarian officials were held hostage in the immediate aftermath of the failed coup.
The influence of the American eugenic movement on Hitler can be seen in several quotes from Mein Kampf.
"The demand that defective people be prevented from propagating equally defective offspring is a demand of the clearest reason and if systematically executed, represents the most humane act of mankind."
"It must see to it that only the healthy beget children...."
"The prevention of procreative faculty in suffers from syphilis, tuberculosis, hereditary diseases, cripples, and cretins is a crime...A prevention of the faculty and opportunity to procreate on the part of the physically degenerate and mentally sick, over a period of only six hundred years, would not only free humanity from an immeasurable misfortune, but would lead to a recovery which today seems scarcely conceivable... The result will be a race which at least will have eliminated the germs of our present physical and hence spiritual decay."
"Speaking English wearing good clothes and going to school and to church do not transform a Negro into a white man. Nor was a Syrian or Egyptian freedman transformed into a Roman by wearing a toga and applauding his favorite gladiator in the amphitheater."
"since it restores that free play of forces which must lead to a continuous mutual higher breeding until at last the best of humanity, having achieved possession of this earth, will have a free path for activity in domains which lie partly above it and partly outside of it."
"that the state represents no end, but a means. It is, to be sure, the premise for the formation of a higher human culture, but not its cause, which lies exclusively in the existence of a race capable of culture."
"Every racial crossing leads inevitably sooner or later to the decline of the hybrid product as long as the higher element of this crossing is still existent in any kind of racial unity."102+
The first quote from Mein Kampf is an eerie echo of Justice Holmes majority opinion in the Buck.
"It is better for all the world if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting Fallopian tubes. Three generations of imbeciles are enough."103
There is no difference in substance in the two quotes. Hitler merely adopted the policies of the American eugenicists. In fact, Hitler was acutely aware of the progress of eugenics in the Untied States, as evident in Mein Kampf where he notes the passage of eugenic quotas for immigration. Hitler attributed the superior culture of the United States compared to South America to a large Germanic population who, unlike the Spanish in South America failed to interbreed with the lesser, native population. Throughout the pages of Mein Kampf one can note the similarity of Hitler's rantings to the policies of the American eugenicists. Perhaps the best means of summarizing Hitler's views comes from Mein Kampf when he states "The Germanic inhabitant of the American continent, who has remained racially pure and unmixed, rose to be master of the continent; he will remain the master as long as he does not fall victim to defilement of the blood."104
During the first two decades of the 20th Century, American eugenicists led the way. However, with the rise of Hitler in Europe, German eugenicists became a co-partner in eugenic research. Nevertheless, it was American money that kept eugenic research and German science alive during the hyperinflation of the early 1920s. One noted beneficiary of Rockefeller Foundation money was the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for eugenic research. In all, three separate institutes of Kaiser Wilhelm fell under the eugenic classification: psychiatry, anthropology, and brain research. All of which owed their founding and good fortune to the Rockefeller Foundation.
Throughout the 1920s, German eugenicists continued to gain stature in the global eugenic movement. On January 30, 1933, Germany assumed the leading role in the eugenic movement with the rise to power of Hitler. It did not take Hitler long to implement his eugenic views. On July 14, 1933, Hitler issued the Reich Statute Part 1 No.86, the Law for the Prevention of Defective Progeny. The law called for compulsory sterilization of defectives. The nine categories listed were headed by feebleminded, schizophrenia, manic-depressive, Huntington's cholera, epilepsy, hereditary body deformities, deafness and hereditary blindness. Alcoholism, the last category on the list, was optional to avoid the confusion with ordinary drunkenness.
The Nazis announced that 400,000 Germans would be subjected to the law immediately. The program was to begin on January 1, 1934. A massive sterilization infrastructure was created to put the new law into effect. Over 205 local eugenic courts were created. In addition, twenty-six special eugenic appellate courts were also created. Physicians were required by law to report suspected patients and to provide their confidential patient records.105
The law was essentially the same law Davenport and Laughlin proposed for the United States and passed in the majority of states. While the rest of the world reacted in shock and horror of the inhumane regime of the Nazis, American eugenicists covered the eugenic developments in Germany with fascination and joy. The Journal of the American Medical Association reported on the Nazi law as if it were a routine health measure like vaccines. Money from the Rockefeller Foundation continued to finance additional Nazi eugenic studies. In fact, the foundation would continue to fund Nazi eugenic research up until the outbreak of war in Europe.
In 1933, after an aggressive campaign to secure a contract with Nazi Germany IBM designed the first Nazi census. It was the technology from IBM that aided the Nazis in carrying out the Holocaust. Without the use of IBM machines, the Nazis would have been forced to painstakingly analyze the genetic records of Europeans by hand, one-at-a-time. It would have taken an army of workers years to sort through all the records by hand, but with the IBM's Hollerith machines the same task could be completed in minutes and hours.
In 1935, after the passage of the Nueremberg Laws, the Nazis awarded Laughlin a special recognition for his contribution to the Reich's policy. Laughlin received an honorary degree from the University of Heidleberg.
It wasn't until 1936 that the eugenic movement would experience a decline due to the Nazi threat in Europe. By then Germany was considered a threat to the peace in Europe. Refugees from Germany were flooding the world.
Central to eugenic studies was research on twins. British and Americans long recognized the need for eugenic research studies on twins. Several small studies on twins were conducted in both England and the United States. However, with the rise of the Nazis, the lead in twin research would pass to Germany, just as the forefront of eugenic research did. Nevertheless, the seed money for German research on twins came from the Rockefeller Foundation, as the following telegram of May 13, 1932, from the Rockefeller Foundation's headquarters to its Paris office reveals.
"JUNE MEETING EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE. NINE THOUSAND DOLLARS OVER THREE YEAR PERIOD TO KWG INSTITUTE ANTHROPOLOGY FOR RESEARCH ON TWINS AND EFFECTS ON LATER GENERATIONS OF SUBSTANCES TOXIC FOR GERM PLASMA. NATURE OF STUDIES REQUIRES ASSURANCE OF AT(Rockefeller's director of science in Europe---Augustus Trowbridge.)"106
The chief beneficiary of the Rockefeller seed money was Dr. Otmar Freiherr von Verschuer. Verschuer was a violent anti-Semitic and German Nationalist. He had participated in the Kapp Putsch in 1920.In 1922, he outlined his nationalistic eugenic position in a student article entitled Genetics and Race Science as the basis for Vokische. By the time of the Beer Hall Putsch, Verschuer was lecturing that fighting the Jews was integral to Germany's eugenic battle. In 1935, he left the Institute of Anthropology to found Frankfurt University's new Institute for Hereditary Biology and Racial Hygiene. By 1937, Verschuer had gained the trust of the Nazis and by 1939, Verschuer was describing his role as pivotal to Nazi supremacy.
Nevertheless, even after the Nazis seized power, the American eugenicists and medical media still praised Verschuer's work. His research was cited in such prestigious American medical journals as the Journal Of The American Medical Association. Moreover, Rockefeller money continued to flow to Verschuer. It wasn't until 1936, after Raymond Fosdick assumed the presidency of the Rockefeller Foundation, that funding for German eugenic research slowed. However, the funds were readily available if the research omitted the word "eugenics" and repackaged the research as "genetics, brain research, serology", etc. In June 1939, the Rockefeller Foundation tried to deny that it was funding Nazi science. Such denials were lies, as the Rockefeller trust was now sending money through the Emergency Fund for German Science. Such sleight-of-hand of course provided the foundation with a window of deniability.
Verschuer received funding from the Rockefeller Foundation in 1933, 1935, 1936 and 1937 for his research on twins. In fact, the funds to Verschuer continued right on through the war years, funding a number of concentration camp experiments. In 1943, he received funding from the German Research Society for experiments packaged under the label of serology. The experiments would require large volumes of blood. The blood would come from twins at Auschwitz.107
In one of the quirks of fate in history, most readers have probably never heard of Verschuer. Yet everyone would be aware of the horrendous and hideous experiments carried out on Auschwitz prisoners at his beckoning. The experiments were carried out by a former Ph.D. candidate of Verschuer who remained a collaborator with him throughout the war. That former student would provide the blood samples in the study mentioned above. His name was Dr. Joseph Mengele, the Angel of Death. Hence, the trail of Rockefeller money leads directly to the gates of Auschwitz and some of the most gruesome experiments ever carried out on humans.108
While Mengele escaped to South America to avoid war crimes charges and a sure date with the hangman, Verschuer was never charged with any war crimes. However, in 1946, the Die News Zeitung published an article listing all the doctors that had fled Germany. On May 3, the paper followed up the article with accusations made against Verschuer by Robert Havemann, a communist and chemist who had resisted the Nazis. He openly accused Verschuer of using Mengele to obtain eyeballs and blood from those murdered at Auschwitz. Verschuer dictated a sworn statement to the occupation-appointed administrator of the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute that he had always opposed racial concepts. He further swore that Mengele had been transferred to Auschwitz against his will. Mengele couldn't wait to get involved in the war and enlisted.
Havemann organized a committee of scientists at Kaiser Wilhelm Institute to examine the evidence against Vershchuer. The committee concluded that Verschuer had engaged in despicable acts in concert with Mengele. The report was sealed for the next fifteen years. A second board found Verschuer innocent of committing any crimes or transgressions against inmates of Auschwitz. Verschuer's record was expunged of any transgressions and he soon became a "respectable scientist" in Germany and the Untied States. In 1949, he became a member of the newly created American Society of Human Genetics, created by eugenicists. The first president of the new society was Hermann Muller of Texas, a former Rockefeller fellow who had worked at the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute in 1932. In 1960, under international pressure to continue the hunt for Nazis, an investigation opened to examine the connection between Verschuer and Mengele. The investigation concluded there was no connection between the two. Verschuer's record like so many other Nazis had been completely white-washed. In 1969, Verschuer was killed in a car accident; he never faced justice for his crimes.109
It wasn't until 1940 that the Carnegie Institute stopped funding Laughlin and the Cold Harbor center. In 1947, a Carnegie administrator overseeing the dismantling of Cold Spring contacted the Dight Institute, a independent eugenic research organization at the University of Minnesota. In 1948, the Dight Institute agreed to take the records concerning individual trait and family documents if Carnegie defrayed the shipping cost. Six months later, the Minnesota Historical Society agreed to take a half-ton of books and family genealogical books. The New York Public Library took in an additional 1000 volumes of family genealogical books.
In December 1946, the United Nations passed Resolution 96 (I), which embedded genocide into international law. The resolution reads as follows. "Genocide is a denial of the right of existence of entire human groups, as homicide is the denial of the right to live of individual human beings, such denial of the right of existence shocks the conscience of mankind, results in great losses to humanity in the form of cultural and other contributions represented by these human groups and is contrary to moral law and the spirit and aims of the United Nations."
Shortly after the passage of Resolution 96 the Treaty Against Genocide was ratified. The treaty delineated five categories of genocide as listed below.
Under the categories listed above aspects of the past and present policy of the United States and Canada towards the Native Americans is considered genocide under the international treaty. Also the policies of many international companies especially those engaged in oil exploration and mining are equally guilty of genocide in the remote areas of South America, Asia and Africa. However, the UN has failed to pursue a single case of genocide against any corporation.
Eugenics, like fascism, didn't die with the end of WWII. Rather, during the war it began to morph into more socially acceptable forms. In fact, one of the largest sterilization campaigns in the United States didn't take place until 1946-1947, in the Winston-Salem school district in North Carolina. The sterilization program evolved out of the Wake Forest Medical School. In 1941, the American Eugenic Society helped establish a Department of Medical Genetics at Wake Forest from money received from the Carnegie Institute. The eugenics Research Association's vice president, William Allan, chaired the new department. Following Allan's death in 1943, Dr. C. Nash Herndon took over the department. Herndon was an advocate of forced sterilization. By 1943, Herndon claimed to have sterilized about thirty individuals, mostly blacks.
In 1946, Gordon Gray founded the Bowman Gray (Memorial) Medical School in Winston-Salem. The school maintained extensive eugenic records of children with diseases believed to be inherited, which included low IQ children.
Herndon and Gray, with the help of Dr. Clarence Gamble, heir to the Proctor & Gamble soap fortune, began a program to administer an IQ test to all Winston-Salem school children. Below some arbitrary cut off point in the test scores, the child was selected for sterilization. The program was extended to nearby Orange County with money from James Gordon Hanes, a trustee of Bowman Gray Medical School and underwear mogul. Hundreds of children in North Carolina were sterilized in the program. Wake Forest is still uncovering its past association with the eugenics movement
www.spiritone.com/~gdy52150/1920sp7.html
The eugenics movement did not end with the program in Winston Salem. In 1950 and 1951, John Foster Dulles led John D. Rockefeller III on a world tour, focusing on the need to stop the expansion of the non-white populations. In the fall of 1952, Rockefeller and Dulles established the Population Council with money from the Rockefeller fortune. The American Eugenics Society soon moved its Yale University headquarters into the offices of the Population Council. The two groups then merged. Dr. Herndon became president of the American Eugenic Society in 1953, and its work continued to expand with money from the Rockefellers.
In the early 1950s, Gordon Gray, a close friend and frequent golfing partner of Prescott Bush was appointed as the first director of the Psychological Strategy Board under Eisenhower. Later in 1958, Gray became National Security Advisor to Eisenhower. Gray's son, C. Bowden served as George Bush's (Prescott's son) legal counsel throughout the evolving Iran-Contra scandal.
In 1958, William Draper was appointed to chair a committee which was advising President Dwight Eisenhower on the use of military aid to other countries. The appointment was made possible by Prescott Bush and Gordon Gray, both whom were frequent golfing partners of Eisenhower. Dillon and Reed employed Draper during the 1930s. It was with Draper's help that Prescott Bush was able to float the largest bond issue for Nazi Germany. Draper later served in post war Germany as the head of the economic unit in charge of dismantling the cartel system.
Draper was a racist and major funder of the eugenic movement. Draper used his position as committee chairman to direct the focus of the committee away from military aid to the danger of over-population in third world countries. His racist views were dismissed by the Eisenhower administration. Draper went on to fund the Population Crisis Committee with money from the Rockefellers and du Ponts. In the 1960s, Draper served as an advisor to LBJ. He was instrumental in getting the Johnson administration to use the overseas aid program to fund birth control in non-white countries.
The Bush-Rockefeller connection goes back to pre-WWI and Samuel Bush, president of Buckeye Casting. Samuel Bush was also director of several Ohio and Pennsylvania railroads. The railroads worked closely with the Ohio-bred Standard Oil. Standard held a minority interest in Buckeye Castings. In turn, railroads transporting Rockefeller oil were required to purchase all of their couplings and related railroad equipment from Buckeye.
George Bush, Prescott's son, was a vocal supporter of Draper's policies. In 1964, he campaigned in Texas against the Civil Rights Act. In 1969, as Congressman, Bush arranged hearings on the dangers posed by the birth of too many black babies.
In 1972, as ambassador to the United Nations, George Bush arranged the first official contract between the American government and the Sterilization League of America, which had, by then, changed its name, yet again, to the Association for Voluntary Surgical Contraception. Under this contract, the United States taxpayer was burdened with the cost of sterilization programs in the non white third world.
In the 1980s, as Vice President, George Bush urged Reagan to appoint Draper's son as administrator of the United Nations Development Program, an organization connected with the World Bank and charged with supervising population control. Bush was also instrumental in the appointment of Draper's son to the Export-Import bank. During the 1980s the Export-Import Bank with the urging of the Reagan administration served as a funnel for funds to provide Saddam Hussein with funds and credits during the Iran-Iraq war.111
The Bush and Draper families have shared close relationships since the 1920s. In 1980, Draper's son was co-chairman for finance and head of fundraising for the George Bush-for-President campaign in 1980.
Dr. Clarence Gamble later established the Pathfinder Fund. The prime objective of the Pathfinder fund is to break down the resistance to sterilization in third world countries.
The racist policies of the Bush family extends into the administration of George W. Bush. Charles Murray, the Pioneer Fund's best known expert, has served as advisor to many of George W's top advisors and is often quoted by them. (The Pioneer Fund was established by Wickliffe Draper, not to be confused with William Draper) Both Tommy Thompson's and NYC Mayor Giuliani's welfare programs are directly influenced by Murray. Murray was a consultant on the Wisconsin plan when Thompson changed the Wisconsin welfare system. Murray's books The Bell Curve and Losing Ground, both about the inferiority of Blacks, serve as bibles for the school privatization and anti-welfare movements in the U.S.
There are a several things to note in the last few paragraphs. The first notable aspect in post-war period is how small and tight this group of eugenics was. Throughout this book, this is a reoccurring theme. American fascism is not broadly based; it is concentrated into a few wealthy families. When it does extend to larger number of families, those families are linked together by inner marriages. American fascism, like the Nazis in Germany is a product of a few elite families. Another circumstance worth noting is the concentration of these people in the Eisenhower administration. Eisenhower was certainly no supporter of Nazi Germany. In fact, he expressed his hatred of the Nazis and Germans in general countless times in letters to his wife. However, his administration was littered with Nazi supporters. In essence, he was duped. However, the old general was not the complete fool. In his farewell address he forewarned us about the military-industrial complex, a polite description for post-war fascism.
It is undeniable that the tentacles of eugenics extend into such noble causes as birth control, population control and Planed Parenthood. When such organizations and policies are under democratic control they can do much to alleviate poverty, human misery and famine. It is only when such policies and organizations slip under the control of such families as the Bush and Rockefellers that they become modern day weapons of genocide.
Although it has been over seventy years, the legacy of the 1920's is not one of flappers and speakeasies. Its true legacy is one of brutal repression. The leaders of corporate America were successful in purging socialists and union organizers through a network of hard right "patriotic" groups. The seeds of fascism had been successfully sowed in the 1920s, and grew into full-blown fascist groups during the economic turmoil of the 1930s.
Before the end of the 1920's, the economy would sink into a deep depression; a fitting tribute to the failed laissez-faire economic policies of the decade's three Republican administrations. The decade would end much the same as it began. In one of the most shameful acts of all time, a hate-filled President Hoover ordered the army to remove Bonus Marchers from Washington, D.C.
In May, 1932, WWI veterans came to Washington DC, demanding payment of their deferred bonuses to help them survive the depression. On May 24, General Alfred Smith, chief of G2 (army intelligence), and General Douglas MacArthur met to consider implementing Emergency Plan White, a plan designed to suppress domestic unrest. Charged with preparation was General George Van Horn Moseley. Moseley and MacArthur were convinced that the Bonus Marchers had fallen under communist control. Moseley was insistent upon removing the marchers by force. Late in July, the army attacked the marchers using tear gas, cavalry, sabers and bayonets. Two officers involved in the attacks were George Patton and Dwight Eisenhower. Moseley held extreme views on eugenics and immigration, and following his retirement became a pro-Nazi figure.18
The Nazi's plan for world domination involved several facets, like a many-headed hydra. The cartel agreements went far beyond the establishment of monopolies, and, in fact, were a major part of the Nazi war plan, and were readily entered into by the leaders of corporate America. Along with fascism support for big business came extreme anti-unionism.
Cartel agreements had two effects on WWII. First, they hindered production of munitions. Second, they shifted the geopolitical balance in South America to the Nazis. American companies were excluded by these agreements from expanding into South America, while German firms were free to do so. Once the war started, these German firms in South America were used to circumvent the British blockade, prolonging the war.
Nazi influence in South America continued after the war, and the continent became a haven for Nazi war criminals. Once safely in South America, Nazi war criminals became military advisors, and trained their host country's security forces. The end result has been a series of coups overthrowing reformist governments, and the installation of brutal dictatorships with their accompanying death squads. The Nazi influence in Argentina was apparent as recently as the Falkland Islands War, in which the Argentine air force achieved some success. The Argentine aircraft industry is the direct product of ex-Nazi engineers.
www.spiritone.com/~gdy52150/1920sbib.html
1. Sabotage, Micheal Sayers Albert Kahn, Harper Brothers, 1942, pages 5-6.
Chapter 5: The 1930s: Nazis Parading on Main Street
2. Germany's Master Plan, Joseph Borkin & Charles welsh, Duell, Sloan & Pearce, 1943, page 22.
3. Germany's Master Plan, pages 24-25.
4. Germany's Master Plan, page 25.
5. Germany's Master Plan, page 16.
6. Germany's Master Plan, page 37.
7. Germany's Master plan, page 46.
8. Germany's Master Plan, page 54.
9. Germany's Master Plan, page 55.
10. Germany's Master Plan, page 56.
11. Germany's Master Plan, page 56-57.
12. Germany's Master Plan, page 58.
13. Germany's Master Plan, pages 75-77.
14. Germany's Master Plan, pages 67-69.
15. Germany's Master Plan, pages 71-72.
16. www.redthread.f2s.com/Quotations/Author/AlvinMOwsley.html
17. The Jewish Threat, Joseph Bendersky, Basic Books, 2000, page 63.
18. The Jewish Threat, pages 202-204.
19. Germany's Master Plan, pages 95-96.
20. The Secret War Against the Jews, John Loftus, Mark Aarons, St. Martins, 1994, page 56.
21. Trading with the Enemy, Charles Higham, Barnes & Noble, 1983, page 167.
22. IBM and the Holocaust, Edwin Black, Crown, 2001.
23. IBM. page 36
24. Germany's Master Plan, pages 88-89.
25. Germany's Master Plan, page 90.
26. IBM, page 70.
27. Germany's Master Plan, pages 86-87.
28. Germany's Master Plan, pages 113-115.
29. Germany's master Plan, pages 206-211.
30. Germany's Master Plane, pages 265-267
31. Treason's Peace, Howard Ambruster, Beechhurst Press, 1947, page 38.
32. Treason's Peace, page 41.
33. Treason's Peace, pages 42-43.
34. Treason's Peace, pages 60-61.
35. Treason's Peace, page 93.
36. Treason's Peace, page 132-135.
37. Treason's Peace, page 138-139.
38. Treason's Peace, page 142.
39. Treason's Peace, page 107.
40. Germany' Master Plan, pages 152-153.
41. Treason's Peace, pages 89-91.
42. Treason's Peace, page 272.
43. Treason's Peace, pages 272-273.
44. Treason's Peace, pages 322-323.
45. IBM, pages 337-339.
46. Red Scare, Robert Murray, McGraw Hill, 1955, page 7.
47. Red Scare, page 9.
48. Red Scare, page 22.
49. Red Scare, pages 40-41.
50. Red Scare, page 85.
51.Red Scare, page 63.
52. Red Scare, page 64.
53. Red Scare, page 65.
54. Red Scare, page 165.
55. www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/45b/030.html
56. www.epls.org/nw/emassacre.htm
57. www.unf.edu/dept/equalop/oeop11.htm
58. www.unf.edu/dept/equalop/oeop11.htm
59. http://techno.king.net/~nrrdgrrl/klan.html
60. Sabotage, Micheal Sayers, Albert Kahn, Harper Borthers, 1942, pages 50-51
61 The Beast Reawakens, Martin Lee, Routledge, 2000, pages 334-335.
62. http://newdeal.feri.org/nation/na37145p166.htm
63. http://hierographicsonline.org/yourhistoryonline/TheRosewoodMassacreReport-I.htm
64. www.displaysforschools.com/rosewoodb.html#what
65. www.ncsu.edu/park_scholarships/symposium/2000/riot.html
66. Klanwatch, Bill Stanton, Mentor, 1991, pages 36-37.
67. The Old Christian Right, Leo Ribuffo, Temple University Press, 1983, page 16.
68. www.aom.org/articles/israel.htm
69. The Old Christian Right, page 119.
70. Religion and the Racist Right, Micheal Barkum, University of North Carolina Press, 1997, page 25.
71. Whiteout The CIA, Drugs, And The Press, Alexander Cockburn, Jeffrey St. Clair, Verso, 1998, pages 67-68.
72. Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler, Antony Sutton, 76 Press, 1976, page 50.
73. The Congressional Record, February 9, 1917, Vol. 54, pages 2947-48.
74. www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26576-2002Mar1.html
75. The Red Scare, pages 94-102.
76. www.rickross.com/groups/winrod.html
77. A Law Unto Itself, Nancy Lisagor & Frank Lipsius, Paragon, 1989, pages 18-19.
78. A Law Unto Itself, pages 26-27.
79. A Law Unto Itself, page 28.
80. A Law Unto Itself, pages 35-36.
81. A Law Unto Itself, page 60.
82. A Law Unto Itself, pages 90-93.
83. A Law Unto Itself, pages 128-129.
84. A Law Unto Itself, pages 137-138.
85. A Law Unto Itself, pages 144-145.
86. A Law Unot Itself, pages 146 -151.
87. A Law Unto Itself, page 156.
88. A Law Unto Itself, p199-200.
89. A Law Unto Itself, page 202.
90. A Law Unto Itself, pages 208-210.
91. Roosevelt and Hitler; Prelude to War, Robert Herzstein, Paragon, 1989, pages 128-129.
92. War Against the Weak, Edwin Black, Four Walls Eight Windows, 2003, pages 1-23.
93. War Against the Weak, pages 63-64.
94. War Against the Weak, page 65.
95. War Against the Weak, pages 75-83.
96. War Against the Weak, pages 108-121.
97. War Against the Weak, pages 122-123.
98. War Against the Weak, pages 185-206.
99. The Coming Plague, Laurie Garrett, Penguin, 1995, page 186.
100. War Against the Weak, pages 247-257.
101. War Against the Weak, pages 258-259.
102. Mein Kampf, Adolf Hitler, Hougnton Mifflin, 1971.
103. War Against the Weak, page 121.
104. War Against the Weak, page 275.
105. War Against the Weak, pages 299-300.
106. War Against the Weak, page 297.
107. War Against the Weak, page 365.
108. War Against the Weak, pages 365-367.
109. War Against the Weak, pages 376-380.
110. War Against the Weak, pages 404-405.
111. www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/
112. Newsweek.COM, Dirty Business
113. The Secret War Against The Jews, John Loftus, Mark Aarons, St. Martin's Griffin, 1994, page 56.
114. The Splendid Blond Beast: Money, Law and Genocide in the Twentieth Century, Christopher Simpson, Grove Press, 1993,pages 46-48.
115. www.bea.gov
www.spiritone.com/~gdy52150/1930s.html
One cannot hope to gain an understanding of fascism in America without first looking at its roots in the 1930s. For most readers, the 1930s evoke images of the Great Depression and Dust Bowl. However, this wrenching decade of world economic turmoil involved far more serious events. From the beginning of the decade, events were conspiring to unleash on an unsuspecting world the horrors of the Second World War and the unfathomable inhumanity of the Holocaust. The Second World War would go on to shape the geopolitical scene for the remainder of the century. Claims arising from the Holocaust would still be front-page headlines as the world entered the 21st century.
The '30s were a decade in which Nazis openly paraded, unopposed, in the streets of America and were supported by many. Much of the details of 1930's fascism are still shrouded in secrecy. It has been over a half-century since the end of the war, yet news is still surfacing of corporate America's dealings with the Nazis. As of yet, no one has exposed, in a comprehensive manner, the connections between the 1930's fascists and today's American right-wing. Many of the events of the decade have been quietly swept under the rug, such as the plot against Roosevelt. The press downplayed the assassination attempt at the time and even today, most people are still unaware of it.
Just as economic hardships in Germany led to the rise of Hitler, many Americans hit by the depression joined the fascist ranks. Likewise, it was the long and deep recession of the 1980s that lead to a reemergence of fascism, not only in the United States but worldwide, as the world transformed from the industrial age to the information age.
In the 1930s membership in fascist groups expanded, with some groups claiming over a million members. This influence extended to the very end of the twentieth century. Many of today's far right extremist groups were founded by former pro-Nazis, an example being the Posse Comitatus founded by former Silver Shirt leader, Henry Lamont Beach. Other far right extremist groups, such as the World Anti-Communist League, are rife with former pro-Nazis and even Nazi war criminals. The Republican Party has been infested with Nazi war criminals. Many of the ethnic heritage groups the Republican Party set up under Nixon are nothing short of havens for former Nazi war criminals. The American Security Council founded in the 1950s was formed by elements from three pro-Nazi groups of the 30s, and exerted a serious influence on the Reagan administration, as did the LaRouche fascist group.
The rhetoric of today's right-wing extremists is telling evidence of their connection to the fascists of the '30s. The current wild-eyed claim among many in militia groups about Russian or UN troops massing on the Canadian border is nothing but recycled rhetoric from the fascists of the '30s. The 1960s right-wing group, the Minutemen, made a similar claim. Their version had the Red Chinese massing along the Mexican border for an invasion. This too, can be traced back to the '30s, when fascists claimed Jews were massing along the Mexican border for an invasion.
With the exception of Russia, Hitler never invaded a country without first unleashing his agents to create domestic unrest. The United States was no exception. The Nazi's web of intrigue in the United States extended far beyond the use of spies and noisy street agitators such as the Silver Shirts. The Nazis found willing accompanists in the media, the halls of Congress, as well as corporate boardrooms.
Fortunately, the fringe right has always been badly fragmented indeed; it would be cause for great concern to see a consolidation today among the various groups. However, the fragmentation of the '30s was even greater than it is today.1 There were well over 700 different fascist groups during the '30s. The American-National-Socialist Party, German-American Bund, Christian Front, the Silver Shirts, America First Committee, the Christian Mobilizer, National Worker's League and the Committee of One Million were some of the more prominent fascist groups at the time. In addition, many factions of the Mother's Movement were openly fascist.
There are numerous parallels between the fascist groups of the 1930s and the far right groups of today, they are as striking as they are disturbing, and should stand as a vanguard, warning of the hidden agenda of right-wing elements in this country. Among the many common elements between yesterday's fascists and today's far-right groups are the intense hatred of minorities and unions, isolationism, destructive divisionism, nationalism and religion. The Identity religion common to so many of today's far-right groups will be shown to have evolved directly from fascist groups of the '30s.
However, the real story of fascism from the '30s and '40s is one of traitors and seditionists escaping justice after the war's end. As the following quote taken from Facts and Fascism by George Seldes shows:
"Only the little seditionist and traitors have been rounded up by the FBI. The real Nazi Fifth Column in America remains immune. And yet there is evidence that those in both countries who place profits above patriotism---and fascism is based entirely on profits although all of its propaganda speaks of patriotism---have conspired to make America part of the Nazi Big Business system. Thurman Arnold, assistant district attorney of the United States, his assistant, Norman Littell, and several congressional investigations, have produced incontrovertible evidence that some of our biggest monopolies entered into secret agreements with the Nazi cartels and divided the world among them. Most notorious of all was Alcoa, the Mellon-Davis-Duke monopoly which is largely responsible for America not having sufficient aluminum with which to build airplanes before and after Pearl Harbor, while Germany had an unlimited supply. Of the Aluminum Corporation sabotage, and that of other leading companies, the press said very little, but several books have now been written out of the official record."2
It is this unbridled corporatism that is the very heart of fascism. Notice how the words of George Seldes written in 1943 are still true today about those that place profits above patriotism. The stated objective of the first Bush administration was to determine, which corporations were responsible for supplying Iraq with the equipment to produce chemical and biological weapons, and to bring them to justice. Ten years after the Gulf War, not a single corporation has been charged, and the media has quietly swept-that-pledge-under-the-rug. As Seldes stated, they are immune.
More odious is that Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defense in the first Bush administration and the current Vice-President, sold Iraq dual-use equipment during his tenure as CEO of Halliburton. Such equipment can be used to rebuild Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. As Secretary of Defense, Cheney awarded several contracts to Halliburton's subsidiary, Brown and Root Services, for reports as to how private companies could provide logistical support to troops in potential war zones. From 1992 to 1999, with Cheney at Halliburton's helm, Brown and Root was awarded a total of $1.2 billion in defense contracts. Here again is a revolving door between corporate America and government. A door leading only to servitude. Not one mention of these deals was made in the press during the 2000 election campaign. Nor was the failure to prosecute the companies that supplied Iraq with the weapons of mass destruction ever mentioned. While the press viciously accused President Clinton of "wagging the dog" after UN inspectors were forced to leave Iraq, they made no mention of Cheney selling dual-use equipment to Iraq.
Here we have the heart of the problem of the next century: corporate power. Corporations have acquired too much power. They have become so powerful they can openly flaunt our labor laws, our environmental laws and even sell materials for weapons of mass destruction without fear. The problem has become so widespread, and corporations have become so powerful, that society now serves the corporations rather than corporations serving society.
In short, as we progress into the new century, the right-wing issues at the forefront of today's political scene are nothing more than recycled pro-fascist issues of the '30s. It is an agenda of corporate rule. The GATS treaty currently being negotiated and the now-dead Multi-Lateral Investment Agreement, are nothing more than attempts to go global with fascist corporatism.
Due to the depths of the depression the early 1930s were rife with grandiose plots. In the fall of 1933, Americans learned of a sensational plot by General Art Smith and his Khaki Shirts. Smith, a soldier of fortunate had formed a tight-knit band of around thirty to one hundred followers. Smith was a raging anti-Semitic and the Khaki Shirts had killed a heckler in New York City in July. As his reputation grew, so did his ambitions. Smith's idol was Mussolini and he boasted that a million men would follow him and they would kill every damn Jew in the United States. He announced he would march on Washington and seize the government--much as Mussolini had done in Italy. Fortunately, Smith was arrested In Philadelphia on October 12 upon a tip police received about an arms cache.113
There is no better place to begin studying the fascism of the 1930s than to start with the one element that was common to all of these fascist groups, and at the heart of their ideology. Fortunately, such an element exists simply it was the visceral hatred of Roosevelt and liberalism by the native fascist. It would take until the 1990s before we would see such a vicious level of hate displayed in mainstream politics again, with the Republican attack on President Clinton. Both events show how far right-wing extremists will go to gain power and subvert democracy.
There is no better event to begin with than the attempted coup d'etat against Roosevelt financed by Irenee du Pont along with the Morgans and a few other wealthy industrialists of the time. Others involved with the plot were Robert Clark, heir to the Singer Sewing machine corporation, Grayson Murphy, Director of Goodyear, and the Pew family of Sun Oil. During the war, all three of these corporations were involved in aiding of the Nazi empire. Singer's plant located on the east side of the Elba was used to manufacture machine guns. Today, Singer has given up the sewing machine business and is now engaged in defense contracting.
Central to the plot were two groups: the American Legion and the Liberty League. The American Legion was formed and financed by the Morgans and Murphy in 1919 to be used primary to break strikes. Several high-ranking officials from the American Legion were associated with the plot: William Doyle, a former state commander of the American Legion and Gerald MacGuire, a former commander of the Connecticut American Legion.
Irenee, the power behind the du Pont throne at the time, held a controlling interest in General Motors. He was an avid fascist and supporter of Hitler, tracking Hitler's career closely from the 1920s. On September 7, 1926, du Pont gave a speech before the American Chemical Society, in which he advocated the creation of a race of supermen. Injecting special drugs into them during childhood would create these supermen. Not every child would receive such injections; du Pont insisted that only those of pure blood would get the injections.96
Throughout the 1930s, the du Ponts invested heavily in Hitler's Germany through their corporate empire. General Motors under the control of the du Pont family had invested thirty million dollars alone into I.G. Farben. Wendell Swint, du Pont's foreign relation's director knew that I.G. and Krupp had arranged to contribute one half of a percent of its payroll to the Nazi party. Swint testified before the 1934 Munitions Hearings that du Pont was fully aware that it was financing the Nazis through the Opal division of General Motors. Even more telling is the amount of financial backing the du Ponts provided pro-Hitler groups in the United States. Starting in 1933, du Pont provided financing for the American Liberty Lobby, Clark's Crusaders (who claimed 1,200,000 members) and the Liberty League.3
In 1934, Irenee du Pont and William Knudsen, the president of General Motors, along with friends of the Morgan Bank and others set into motion a plot to overthrow FDR. They provided three million in funding for an army of terrorists that was modeled after the French fascist group, Croix de Feu.4 The objective of the plot was to either force Roosevelt to take orders from this group of industrialists as part of a fascist-style government or to execute him if he chose not to cooperate.
The plotters selected General Smedley Butler, a WWI hero to head the plot. Butler was overtly opposed to fascism and had spoken out denouncing Mussolini as a murderer and thug in 1931. The Italian government demanded an apology and President Hoover complied along with placing Butler under arrest for court-martial proceedings. Roosevelt then governor of New York spoke out against the charges against Butler. Roosevelt had been responsible for awarding Butler's Second Medal of Honor for his service in Haiti. President Hoover then backed down, and Butler received a mild reprimand for refusing to retract his words.
The plotters had selected Butler because of his immense popularity among veterans. Butler had spoken words of encouragement to the Bonus Marchers and was relentless in his pursuit for better treatment of American veterans. Gerald MacGuire and Bill Doyle first approached Butler at his home. Both were wounded veterans of WWI. Both played on Butler's sympathy for veterans. However, Butler was not an easy man to fool. After pleasantries were exchanged, the men discussed each other's service in WWI. Then MacGuire worked up the nerve to present his plan to Butler.
According to MacGuire, they wanted Butler to attend an American Legion convention and give a speech in favor of the gold standard. Butler immediately asked about the bonus for the veterans. The best answer MacGuire could produce was that they wanted the veterans to be paid in gold and not "rubber" money. Butler was suspicious both MacGuire and Doyle were dressed in fancy tailored suits and they had pulled into his driveway with a chauffeured limousine. With his suspicions aroused, Butler refused to give them an affirmative reply, but he left the door open a crack to learn more.
Unbeknownst to the plotters however, Butler was a man of honor and believed in the Constitution and democracy. He had a reputation of absolute honesty and was careful in how his name was used and by whom his name was used by. Stringing MacGuire along, Butler attended several more meetings with MacGuire before the latter left for Europe.
MacGuire was a bond salesman for Clark and had been sent to Europe to study how fascist in Europe used veterans. Upon his return from Europe, MacGuire once again sought out Butler. Additional meetings followed, including one in which MacGuire laid out 18 thousand dollar bills to prove that he had enough funding and to alleviate any concerns Butler had. At the same meeting, MacGuire wanted Butler to attend an American Legion Convention with 200 hundred or so of Butler's friends. Butler refused to attend. Again he was suppose to give a speech in favor of the gold standard.
By insisting on an endorsement of the gold standard MacGuire aroused Butler's suspicions and concerns of an ulterior motive. In one meeting, MacGuire implied that they had men inside the Roosevelt Administration that kept them fully informed to convince the reluctant general to join his plot. Butler noted that McGuire had correctly predicted the dismissal of officials from the Roosevelt administration. He also noted that McGuire had correctly predicted that the American legion would endorse the gold standard. Additionally, Butler did observe that other events MacGuire predicted came true in several cases.
In another meeting, MacGuire threatened that if Butler did not accept leadership of the plot that General Douglas MacArthur would replace him. MacGuire claimed that the Morgans favored MacArthur but that he had held out for Butler. Another name mentioned, in case Butler refused to head the plot was former American Legion head Hanford MacNider of Iowa. MacArthur was very unpopular among the veterans for leading the charge against the bonus marchers. MacNider was also unpopular with veterans for opposing early payment of the bonus. MacGuire noted this and informed Butler that MacNider would soon switch his view on the bonus. Within a week Butler noted MacNider's switch.
There were other meetings with Butler, who eventually demanded to meet with the leaders of the plot. Clark then met with Butler and offered him a bribe to read a speech (once again favoring the gold standard) before the American Legion written by John W. Davis, a former Democratic presidential candidate, and chief counsel to J.P. Morgan. Butler bristled at being offered a bribe. Clark backed off, and announced that he was withdrawing his own support from the effort. In response, the plotters brought in Frank N. Belgrano JR, a senior vice president of the Gianinni's Bank of Italy that handled Mussolini's business accounts to head the American Legion. Giannini also founded the Bank of America. Belgrano remained an official of Bank of America until after the death of the founder, Giannini after which, Belgrano founded Transamerica.
Eventually MacGuire had to confess to Butler that the plot involved replacing Roosevelt. MacGuire suggested that Roosevelt was tired and needed an assistant to run the country while he attended to ceremonial activities much like the King of Italy, who had relinquished such power to Mussolini. Butler bristled at the idea.
In July, the Morgan-Mellon controlled press (including Henry Luce's Fortune magazine) unleashed a propaganda blitz extolling the virtues of fascism. In August, the American Liberty League appeared. Butler had been informed of the appearance of this group as part of the plot beforehand.
Morgan and du Pont cronies (including John J. Raskob) funded the League. Included in the League's advisory council were Dr. Samuel Hardin Church, who ran the Carnegie Institute in Pittsburgh, W.R. Perkins of National City Bank; Alfred Sloan, CEO of GM; Joseph M. Proskauer, former New York Supreme Court Justice and the general counsel to the Consolidated Gas Company; J. Howard Pew of Sun Oil and the financier of the openly fascist Sentinels of the Republic; and David Reed, the Republican Senator from Pennsylvania who remarked on the floor of the Senate in May 1932: "I do not often envy other countries and their governments, but I say that if this country ever needed a Mussolini, it needs one now."
Fearing the plot was about to climax with the appearance of the Liberty League, Butler wanted to go public with what he knew. However, he knew he would be ridiculed without someone else to collaborate his story. Seeking out help from a newspaper reporter that he trusted. Butler had Paul French interview MacGuire. In the interview with French, MacGuire confirmed what he had told Butler and also confirmed his ebullience for fascism as follows:
"We need a fascist government in this country... to save the nation from the communists who want to tear it down and wreck all that we have built in America. The only men who have the patriotism to do it are the Soldiers, and Smedley Butler is the ideal leader. He could organize a million men overnight."75
Once French had confirmed the plot, Butler informed the Roosevelt administration. Roosevelt realized that with the backing of such a plot from such powerful business leaders, that he could not dismiss the plot as a crackpot scheme. Yet, Roosevelt was also well aware that by arresting the leaders of such industrial powerhouses of the day; it could create a national crisis that could abort the fledgling economic recovery and perhaps trigger another Wall Street crash.
To foil the plot, FDR had news of the plot leaked to the press and formed a special House committee to investigate the matter. The McCormick-Dickstein Committee agreed to hear Butler's story in a secret session that met in New York City on November20, 1934. Over four days the committee heard Butler and French present the details of the plot and the testimony of MacGuire. Although, Butler did not testify that MacGuire had offered him $750 for each speech he delivered if he included a remark favorable to the gold standard, a secret report reached the White House from Val O'Farrell, a former New York City detective confirming it.
Both McCormick and Dickstein described MacGuire's testimony as imminently self-incriminating. MacGuire was caught lying several times. The committee determined that MacGuire did have in his possession the thousand dollar bills mentioned and was in the proper location although he claimed to have been elsewhere. George Seldes noted that all of the principals in the case were American Legion Officials and conservative financial backers. Other administration officials urged the committee to get to the bottom of the case. McCormick indicated that Butler's evidence was not the first of the plot that in fact the committee had been in possession of other evidence for five weeks.
With many of the country's leading papers openly pro-fascist, coverage of the plot was promptly buried or dismissed as the ravings of a mad man. On November 22, the Associated Press struck a low blow at Butler in the headline "'Cocktail Putsch'" Mayor Says."108 Mayor LaGuardia had came out against Butler.
Butler however, received fresh support from James Van Zandt, who revealed to the press that he also had been approached by the plotters. Van Zandt was the head of the VFW. Van Zandt claimed that besides himself, MacArthur, Theodore Roosevelt Jr. and MacNider had all been sounded out. After announcing that Clark would be subpoenaed to appear before the committee as soon as he returned from Europe, the committee quickly adjourned without calling additional witness. Not a single name mentioned in all of the testimony ever appeared before the committee. Writer John Spivak learned that Frank Belgrano had been called to testify but had returned home after never being called by the committee.
The committee was formally dissolved on January 3. No other witnesses ever appeared before the committee. Apparently when one is rich enough, one is immune from the laws of the country, regardless of how damning the evidence is. On February 15 the committee released its preliminary findings.
In the last few weeks of the committee's official life it received evidence showing that certain persons had made an attempt to establish a fascist organization in this country. No evidence was presented and this committee had none to show a connection between this effort and any fascist activity of any European country. There is no question that these attempts were discussed, were planned, and might have been placed in execution when and if the financial backers deemed it expedient. This committee received evidence from Maj. Gen. Smedley D. Butler (retired), twice decorated by the Congress of the United States. He testified before the committee as to conversations with one Gerald C. MacGuire in which the latter is alleged to have suggested the formation of a fascist army under the leadership of General Butler MacGuire denied these allegations under oath, but your committee was able to verify all the pertinent statements made by General Butler, with the exception of the direct statement suggesting the creation of the organization.
This, however, was corroborated in the correspondence of MacGuire with his principal, Robert Sterling Clark, of New York City, while MacGuire was abroad studying the various forms of veterans organizations of Fascist character This committee asserts that any efforts based on lines as suggested in the foregoing and leading off to the extreme right, are just as bad as efforts which would lead to the extreme left. Armed forces for the purpose of establishing a dictatorship by means of Fascism or a dictatorship through the' instrumentality of the proletariat, or a dictatorship predicated on racial and religious hatreds, have no place in this country. 109
The total vindication of Butler was muffled by the press. The New York Times failed to report the committee's findings on the plot. Instead it chose to report on the committee's recommendation of registering all foreign propagandists. Buried deeply in the pages of the Times was a brief acknowledgement that Butler's story had been proven to be true. Much the same held true for the rest of the nation's newspapers. The story would be killed by not reporting it. John Spivak had been tipped off that the committee findings were censored. A veteran Washington correspondent had told Spivak, a Cabinet member had made the decision. The implication was that the release of certain names would embarrass the Democratic Party. At least two prominent Democrats who had been presidential candidates had been involved: John Davis, who now was a lawyer for the Morgans, and Al Smith, now a crony of the du Ponts. About a week after receiving the tip Spivak accidentally stumbled across the uncensored report. Spivak copied the uncensored version and then compared it to the official version. The censored portions of the testimony given by Butler and French can be found in The Plot to Seize the White House.107
Even more curious is the fact not a single person ever faced charges. Spivak went to the Justice Department and was informed that the Justice Department had no plans to prosecute. The American Civil Liberties Union issued an angry statement on the lack of justice stemming from the committee's findings.
The congressional committee investigating un-American activities has just reported that the of a Fascist plot to seize the government. . . was proved; yet not single participant will be prosecuted under the perfectly plain language of the federal conspiracy act making this a high crime. Imagine the action if such a plot were discovered among Communists! Which is, of course, only to emphasize the nature of our government as representative of the interests of the controllers of property. Violence, even to the seizure of government, is excusable on the part of those whose lofty motive is to preserve the profit system. . . 110
Obviously powerful forces had been brought to bear on the committee. Forces more powerful than the government, forces immune from the country's laws. Perhaps, Spivak explains why the plot failed best.
The takeover plot failed because though those involved had astonishing talents for making breathtaking millions of dollars, they lacked an elementary understanding of people and the moral forces that activate them. In a money-standard civilization such as ours, the universal regard for anyone who is rich tends to persuade some millionaires that they are knowledgeable in fields other than the making of money. The conspirators went about the plot as if they were hiring an office manager; all they needed was to send a messenger to the man they had selected. 111
Four years after the formation of a congressional committee, the committee released a white paper concluding that certain persons had attempted to establish a fascist government. Further investigations disclosed that over a million people had contracted to join the terrorist army and that Remington, a du Pont subsidiary, would have supplied the arms and munitions5.
As the du Ponts saw their plot crashing in around them, they chose to work within the system to gain power just as Hitler did after the failed Beer Hall Putsch. In the 1936 presidential race, the du Ponts and the American Liberty League backed Alf Landon.
The fascist groups initially had agreed to back Father Coughlin's third party candidate, Bleakley. After agreeing to back Bleakley, Fritz Kuhn, the leader of the American Bund visited Nazi Germany ahead of the election and conferred with the leaders of the Nazi party. At the urging of Hitler's henchmen he returned backing Landon and urged other fascists to do the same.
www.spiritone.com/~gdy52150/1930sp2.html
With its pro-business agenda, and the fascist views of the leaders of corporate America, the Republican Party soon became laden with fascists.
Even before Hitler and the Nazis seized power in Germany, the Nazis were already actively involved in American politics and elections. Shockingly, the Nazis did not have to infiltrate the party; many were already employed at high levels in the national or state Republican Party organizations.
In October 1928, Edmond Furholzer, a pro-Nazi publisher from Germantown, NY presented the New York State Republican Committee with an offer that for twenty thousand dollars he would deliver the German vote to Hoover. With Hoover's chances looking good, and it being late in the campaign, Furholzer's offer was turned down.
Furholzer was hardly an obscure Nazi, and was a leading figure in the hard-right of Yorkville, a heavily German neighborhood of Manhattan. The Republican State Committee adopted many of Furholzer's proposals in 1928, and four years later, when Hoover's chances were dismal; Furholzer's help was gladly accepted. In fact, during the 1932 campaign, Furholzer worked endlessly for the Republican National Committee, campaigning tirelessly for Hoover in New York State. He smeared Roosevelt as the new Wilson, the man that had destroyed Germany.92 In 1933, Furholzer returned to Germany.
By 1934, the Nazis had only been in power for less than a year, but already were active in placing their agents or pro-Nazis into positions of power. On February 22, 1934, the Republican Party merged their Senatorial and Congressional Campaign Committees into a single organization independent of the Republican National Committee.
Senator Daniel Hastings of Delaware and Representative Chester Bolton announced the merger. Just before the merger, the two campaign committees hired Sidney Brooks, the long-time head of research at International Telephone and Telegraph (ITT). ITT was one of many American corporations that went to extraordinary means to continue trading with the Nazis after war broke out.
Shortly after Brooks took charge, he made a frantic visit to New York. On March 4, 1934, he went to Room 830 of the Hotel Edison, a room rented to a Mr. William Goodales of Los Angles. Goodales was in fact William Dudley Pelly. The meeting concluded with an agreement to merge the Order of 76 with the Silver Shirts. Later Brooks would stop at 17 Battery Place, the address of the German Consulate General.
Brooks was a member of the Order of 76, a pro-fascist group. The Order of 76 application required the fingerprints of the proposed member, and certain details of their life. Brooks' application revealed that he was the son of Nazi agent Colonel Edwin Emerson and that he chose to use his mother's maiden name to conceal his father's identity.80 Emerson was a major financial backer of Furholzer and his paper.
Thus, as early as 1934, the Republican Party was collaborating with Nazis and pro-fascist groups at a high level. This would not be the last example of collaboration between high-level Republicans and Nazis, as the following headlines make clear.
On October 22, 1936, the New York Post broke the following story.
Nazi Publicist On G.O.P. Payroll
On October 30, 1936, the New York World-Telegram revealed additional details. U.S. Nazi Attack on Jews Is Laid to Republicans
Anti-Semitic Radio Speeches by Griebl, Others sponsored by G.O.P
Fritz Kuhn Among Speakers in Regular Broadcasts over WWRL
The Republican Party had been sponsoring radio broadcasts by American Nazis to win German votes, it was disclosed today. One of the recent speakers was Dr. Ignatz T. Griebl a national Nazi leader and pronounced anti-semitic...79
The hiring of Brooks in 1934 to head up the joint election campaign committee, and the headlines from 1936 sets up a pattern of collaboration between elements of the Republican Party and the Nazis. While the use of a false name by Brooks provides some means of deniability, his pro-fascist views were hardly a secret. However, the earlier involvement of the Republican State Party with Furholzer would render any deniability moot. There is no deniability for the 1936 headlines, as all were well known Nazis.
The more damaging second quote provides proof that the Republican Party leadership was willing to promote Nazi racism. In fact, an integral part of the Nazi battle plan was the promotion of racial riots or division within the United States to weaken or prevent the U.S. from entering the war. Such collaboration with the Nazis was tantamount to treason. Hitler and his agents in the United States must have been very pleased that leaders of the Republican Party were willing to promote and incite civil unrest.
This example of vicious anti-Semitic campaigns by Republican leaders was not an isolated incident. In fact, it was commonplace. In the 1938 Minnesota governor's race, leading officials of the Republican Party conducted another vicious anti-Semitic campaign, this one to defeat Farmer-Labor Governor Elmer Benson.
Benson's inaugural address on January 5, 1937 placed him on the left end of the New Deal. FDR had endorsed Benson in 1936. The Republican Party considered it a declaration of war. Among the issues Benson supported were:
A two-year extension on the mortgage moratorium for farmers.
- A technical assistance program to assist and promote cooperatives.
- Union wages for state employees.
- The creation of a state commission on youth.
- Free transportation for rural high school students.
- Repeal of the criminal syndicalism laws (remember the Wobblies?)
- Creation of a state housing agency.
- The development of a state owned cement plant.
- Increased benefits for the disabled, people on relief, and the aged.
- A constitutional amendment enabling the state to produce and sell electrical power to municipalities.
- A state liquor dispensary.
- New provisions in the state's unemployment benefits--including benefits for striking workers.85
Few of Benson's proposals became law as his program was effectively blocked in the state senate. Central to Benson's programs was a restructuring of the tax code, which passed the state house of representatives intact. Some of the provisions were:
1. Complete removal of the state tax levy of homes and homesteads up to the value of $4,000.
2. Taxing of the net income of individuals and corporations on a graduated basis so that a large share of local school taxes would be replaced by state income tax revenues.
3. Increased taxes on accumulated wealth, including mining companies, so that the state budget could be balanced.
4. Increased taxes on chain stores.85
The conservatives in the Senate ignored the House tax bill until a few days before the legislative session closed, resulting in a special session. The Twin City press ran article after article denouncing the Farmer-Labor Party while citing such business leaders as Charles Fowler of Northern States Power, Mr. Montague representing the Steel Trust, Aleck Janes of Great Northern Railroad, and Aaron Youngquist of Minnesota Power and Light. With the press at the beck and call of business leaders clamoring that the Farmer-Labor Party was driving business out of the state, Benson's tax proposals failed to pass the Senate, but the stage was set for a bitter election campaign the following year.
In 1938, the Republican Party, with Harold Stassen heading the state ticket, ran two campaigns. One, a high road campaign by Stassen, the other a dirty campaign headed by the old guard within the Republican Party. Led by Ray P. Chase, this second campaign set new lows. Chase's vehicle for running this second campaign was the Ray P. Chase Research Bureau. Financing his efforts were some of Minnesota's business elite: George Gillette, President of Minneapolis Moline; J. C. Hormel, the meat packer; James Ford Bell, Northwestern Bank; Colonel Robert McCormick, owner of the Chicago Tribune; and George Belden of the Citizens Alliance.
To accomplish his goal, Chase used both legal and illegal methods. Files were stolen from the State Relief Department and Farmer-Labor members were scanned for communist activity. Dean Edward Nicholson supplied data about left wing student organizations on the University of Minnesota campus. One of the students labeled a dangerous radical was Eric Sevareid. Chase produced and distributed the red baiting pamphlet, Are They Communists or Catspaws. After the pamphlet's introduction, Chase launched into a vicious anti-Semitic attack about an alleged conspiracy, equating Judaism with communism, and Governor Benson's role in it.
Chase's attack did not stop inside Minnesota. Using the services of Cyrus McCormick, Chase managed to get U.S. Congressman Martin Dies to hold hearings in late October on communist influence in the Farmer-Labor Party.85
To understand how the Republican Party could run election campaigns based on intense and vicious racist platforms; one needs to understand the attitude of the country towards Jews at the time. A few days after Kristallnacht, Roosevelt spoke out publicly expressing his anger and horror. A Gallup poll that month revealed that 94% of the people disapproved of the Nazi treatment of Jews, but 97% of the people also disapproved of the way Nazis treated Catholics. A Roper poll that same month revealed the deep anti-Semitic views in America. The poll found that only 39% of the people believed that Jews should be treated as everyone else, 53% believed that Jews were different and should be restricted, and 10% believed Jews should be deported. In the winter of 1938-1939, many had denounced helping "refu-Jews." Polls revealed 71-85% opposed increasing immigration quotes; 67% opposed admitting any refugees and 67% opposed a one-time admission of 10,000 refugee children.
Turning away the refugees aboard the St. Louis was a low point in the Roosevelt administration and perhaps indefensible in light of the Holocaust, but Roosevelt hardly acted in a vacuum. The public opinion was decidedly against admitting Jews. One can only guess at how much of the anti-Semitism prevalent at the time, was the direct result of the various anti-Semitic campaigns conducted by the Republican Party. It could not be a minor factor, as many of these anti-Semitic campaigns ran by Republicans equated Judaism with communism, as in the example of the 1938 Minnesota election.
The pattern of collaboration between the Republican Party and the Nazis extends further. On November 23, 1937, executives of General Motors and other corporate and political leaders met with Baron Manfred von Killinger, and agreed to a total commitment towards the Nazi cause. The agreement also called for the replacement of Roosevelt---preferably with Burton Wheeler of Montana. The agreement was secret but leaked to George Seldes and published in In Fact. The entire text of the agreement can be found in Facts and Fascism, a portion of which appears below.9
"The substance of the German suggestion amounts to changing the spirit of our nation as expressed by recent elections. That is possible but by no means easy. The people must become aware of the disastrous economic effects of the policies of the present administration first. In the wake of reorientation of the public opinion a vigorous drive must start in the press and radio. Technically it remains a question as to whether this drive may center around the Republican National Committee.
Farsighted businessmen will welcome conferences of this kind. A tremendous inspiration might come out of them. There is no reason why we should not learn of emergencies similar to those prevailing in our own country and the methods by which farsighted governments were trying to overcome them. It is also clear that manufacturers, who usually contributed to the campaigns of all candidates must realize that their support must be reserved to one, in whose selection they must take an active hand."
Each section of the document was written by one of the participants. A member of the United States Senate wrote the first paragraph of the quote above, a representative of General Motors wrote the second. Once again, it is clear from the first paragraph that leaders of the Republican Party were collaborating with the Nazis. It further establishes this pattern of collaboration over a period of several years. Nor would this be the last involvement of Nazis within the Republican Party. In 1940, a group of Republican congressmen accepted money from Hitler for their election campaigns.
The second paragraph above is of paramount importance. The leaders of corporate America did follow the prescription above for subverting democracy.
After the failure of Landon in the presidential race, and in defiance of Roosevelt's desire to improve working conditions for the average man, Knudsen and du Pont launched a speed-up system at General Motors. The system forced men to work at horrifying speed and many line workers died from the heat and the pressure.
Irenee du Pont personally paid out almost one million dollars to hire armed storm troopers modeled after the Gestapo, and equipped them with gas to sweep through his plants and beat any rebellious workers. He also hired Pinkerton to look through his industrial empire to spy on left-wingers, "malcontents," or labor leaders. This was at the same time he started to finance the notorious Black Legion in the Detroit area. He encouraged foremen at General Motors to join this group of terrorists.
The prime purpose of the Black Legion was to fire bomb union meetings, murder union leaders and terrorize all workers to prevent unionization. The Black Legion was linked to the Klan, and to the even more terrifying Wolverine Republican League. Members of this later group included several big business leaders. The Black Legion murdered at least 50 people, many of them black .6
Just as the backers of Hitler's were rich industrialists, so were the backers of fascism in the United States. Corporate America willingly entered into cartel agreements, which, in effect, granted them a monopoly. A second aspect of fascism that appealed to big business was its extreme anti-unionism. Professor Gaetano Salvemini of Harvard was quoted in the undergraduate daily, that a new fascism threatened America, the fascism of corporate business enterprise in this country. He also believed that 100% of American big business was in sympathy with fascism .8 At the very least support, for fascism was widespread among industrialists in this country, as the following quote from The New York Times from the Ambassador to Germany, William Dodd shows:
"A clique of U.S. industrialists is hell-be