« Syria - 30 July 2016 | Main | Harper on the 28 pages. »

31 July 2016


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


Graham Fuller? Graham E. Fuller?


Steve Sailer may be inspired by some of the stories around Sibel Edmonds, Gülen and the CIA's deliberate Islamization of Central Asia project.

Got a link?

Larry Kart

Better -- but the mostly behind-the-scenes process by which Hitler was named chancellor by the worn out "I've had enough" Hindenburg and the cabal of right-wing industrialists et al. who thought they could use Hitler to advance their own interests was legal and constitutional only because no such power play at that level of government had been mounted in the course of post-WWI Germany, and thus there were no significant barriers in place to stop or forestall it. Further, the subsequent impediments to plots against Hitler were not only major psychological in nature but also the result of the rapid transformation of Germany into an authoritarian state where any act of opposition to Hitler could lead to dire sanctions/punishment. That did not quash all opposition to Nazi rule, but it certainly curtailed it.

I mention this only because the "Hitler was elected" meme is so oddly persistent. Further, while the supposed virtues of democracy of course can be darkly transformed by other political-social circumstances/authoritarian maneuvers -- as seems to be the case in Turkey now -- the claim that "Hitler was elected" often has (though not as you used it above) a "So much for democracy" undertone to it, as though Hitler's supposed but non-existent democratic election is in itself enough to gravely discredit democracy.



"the CIA's deliberate Islamization of Central Asia project" If you mean the war against the USSR in Afghanistan, the Pakistan ISA were in direct contact. with the mujahideen, not the CIA and they insisted on dealing with Islamic groups. Actually there were no substantial groups of secular rebels. pl



" but also the result of the rapid transformation of Germany into an authoritarian state where any act of opposition to Hitler could lead to dire sanctions/punishment."

Sounds just like Turkey. The "any act of opposition....could lead to dire sanctions/punishment" sound just like an American college campus in 2016.



This process of destruction of the Turkish Army by Tayyip is quite like the process by which Saddam destroyed the Iraqi Army. pl

Babak Makkinejad

Hitler was Germany's Black Messiah; German people loved him.

That is not the case with Erdogan; in my opinion.


Weimar, Babak, Weimar.

Because that's where the constitution was drafted:



"In regards to Hitler, the German people wanted him - Odin was ruling them - as CC Jung observed."

Thanks, to Larry Kart for responding to that. Seizure of power, Reichstagsfire, Emergency laws followed by a not really free election anymore in March 1933. They gained around 10% but not the majority.


I suppose you don't mean CC Jung but C. G. Jung, don't you?



Rule by presidential decree was the constitutional innovation by the "democrat" Heinrich Bruning before Hitler or Papen were to be the chancellor and it came about largely because the Reichstag became completely dysfunctional and normal legislative politics was no longer feasible. Much is made of how Hitler did not "win" any election, but you don't "win" elections in a parliamentary system with proportional representation, period, anyways. The key is that adding Hitler to the right wing coalition gave them a majority in Reichstag--a conventional enough parliamentary maneuver--and, in an era when the legislative process was immobilized due to lack of a working majority, something that might even have seemed "democratic" compared to ever continuing squabbles and name calling. So, all in all, Hitler's rise to power, while under rather extreme circumstances, was fully "democratic." It only looks extreme in retrospect because it's Hitler and not, say, Stephen Harper or Alcide Gaspari.


The German "people" loved Hitler the way "we" love Trump or "the Egyptians" loved Morsi. Hitler had fans, many fans, but hardly "the German people." If the election results are any indication, the same is true with Erdogan and AKP, as far as I can tell.

Babak Makkinejad

I think Larry Kart and you and many others are unwilling to accept that a people could or would want a particular political order with all its ramifications.

To me, such arguments as Larry Kart and a number of others on this forum supply in regards to the rise of NAZIs etc. are akin to clutching at straws.

I suppose such arguments have their utility in as much as they obfuscate issues of Collective Guilt and Collective Responsibility - uncomfortable for many people.


If I recall correctly, on another thread, Ishmael Zechariah, predicted we'll have a
clearer vision of Erdogan's post-coup direction for Turkey after August 9th...
something about a possible meeting with Russia @ that time.

I'm more inclined to predict clarity on or around dawn on August 24th when a tightly conjoined Mars/Saturn conjunction @ 9 degrees of Sagittarius hits the ascendant of Ankara & simultaneously activates the nadir (4th house cusp) of the U.S. The fixed star, Antares is also @ 9 degrees Sagittarius. This transit is thankfully fast moving
but can be very cruel. I hope to be wrong.



Yes these fine, fine Germans of Turkish decent are willing to protest in the streets of Cologne by the tens of thousands because it is what, in Germany's interest to have the nation their forefathers came from destroyed by Erdogan? The photo you linked too has less than 100 people in it. Fifty thousand is a lot more than 100.


So Albayim, who benefits, aside from the obvious culprit?



The Ummah when he is Khalifa. pl


I've got a feeling that the KSA is involved in this somehow. Well, the "How" is obvious - money - but WHO have they backed inside Turkey?

Naively believing the standard picture of Gulen as a "relatively mellow Islamist", I would have - and had - assumed that KSA was quietly shoveling money to Erdogan & the AKP, tugging them toward a more hard-line Wahhabi version of Islam.

Info I've seen more recently points to the possibility of links between Gulen & (some? which?) Israelists, but perhaps I'm being paranoid. They could have easily arranged his papers in this country, and managed his presumed (tenuous?) relationship with the CIA.

IF (yeah, big if) I'm right about these things (KSA-Turkey, Gulen-Israel), then the timing of the break between Erdogan & Gulen makes sense. The release - finally - of the extra 28 pages of the 911 report would not have happened without the consent of AIPAC/etc (via influence in Congress). The "alliance" between Israel & KSA is fraying; AIPAC is no longer protecting KSA from mad Americans (ala Zelikow reference in Harpers post). US MSM is printing Bad Things about KSA (finally!).

Under this theory, Turkey squashes Gulen - AIPAC loses a pawn. But if Turkey turns East (drops US/NATO/EU ties, cooperates with R+6), will KSA be far behind? China would be a safer customer for them than the USA has been and ever could be, so why not?

I'm saddened by Turkey's turn towards stricter Islam, and I wouldn't want to see that exacerbated by a break in US/Turkish relations. OTOH, I'd say "good riddance" to KSA.

But the danger in all this is that reduced US influence in those two countries could threaten Israel (unless they, too, turn East???), and things which threaten Israel tend to turn into US wars.

That scares me real bad.

Larry Kart

Seems to me you’re conflating several different acts/events:

1) Shortly after Brüning took office as Chancellor on 30 March 1930 he was confronted by an economic crisis. Brüning responded with tightening of credit and a rollback of all wage and salary increases. These policies increased unemployment and made Brüning highly unpopular, losing him support in the Reichstag. As a result, Brüning established a so-called presidential government, basing his government's authority on presidential emergency decrees invoking President Paul von Hindenburg's constitutional powers.

Brüning announced his cabinet's resignation on 30 May 1932, after his policies of distributing land to unemployed workers had led him into conflict with the President and the Prussian land owners, and the President therefore had refused to sign further decrees. 

In other words, Bruning invoked Hindenburg’s constitutional powers so he himself could make emergency decrees, but Bruning’s ability to act on this basis was eventually squelched by Hindenburg and allied forces. By contrast, Hitler’s ability to govern by decree was made iron-clad by the Reichstag Fire Decree and the Enabling Act [see below], which together went far beyond anything that Bruning had ever attempted, envisioned, and/or been able to pull off.

2) The Reichstag Fire Decree was issued by President Hindenburg on the advice of Chancellor Hitler in direct response to the Reichstag fire of February 27, 1933. The decree nullified many of the key civil liberties of German citizens. With Nazis in powerful positions in the German government, the decree was used as the legal basis for the imprisonment of anyone considered to be opponents of the Nazis, and to suppress publications not considered "friendly" to the Nazi cause. The decree is considered to be one of the key steps in the establishment of a one-party Nazi state in Germany.

3) The Enabling Act was a 1933 Weimar Constitution amendment that gave the German Cabinet -- in effect, Chancellor Hitler -- the power to enact laws without the involvement of the Reichstag. It passed in both the Reichstag and Reichsrat on 24 March 1933, and was signed by President Hindenburg later that day. 

The act stated that it was to last four years unless renewed by the Reichstag, which occurred twice. The Enabling Act gave Hitler plenary powers. It followed on the heels of the Reichstag Fire Decree, which abolished most civil liberties and transferred state powers to the Reich government. The combined effect of the two laws was to transform Hitler's government into a de facto legal dictatorship.

The Enabling Act was enacted by the Reichstag (meeting at the Kroll Opera House), where non-Nazi members were surrounded and threatened by members of SA and SS. The Communists had already been repressed and were not able to vote, and some Social Democrats were kept away as well. In the end, nearly all the those present voted for the act, except for the Social Democrats, who voted against it.

4) As for the German electoral process, you seem to be referring to the July 31, 1932 Federal Election, in which the Nazi Party became the largest party in the Reichstag, though without winning a majority. I was referring to the next Federal Election, of November 6, 1932 (no other free election would be held in Germany until the West Germany election of 1949).

In the November 1932 election the number of votes cast for the Nazi Party dropped from a little less that 14 million (in July) to a little less than 12 million, while the party's number of seats in the Reichstag decreased from 230 (in July) to 196. Thus the political/electoral trend for the Nazis and Hitler was on a downward slope until the more or less undemocratic process (described in my previous posts) by which Hitler was named chancellor went into motion and had its effects.



Like Iranians loved Khomeini.

Babak Makkinejad

They did, in their millions.

You can look at the footage of the bare-feet millions that flooded Tehran at the news of his death.

Babak Makkinejad

I do not think I can agree with you; foreigners witnessed that. I realize that such a level of emotional attachment to a leader is inconceivable for many people, including yourself.

Nevertheless, I stand by my comments since I believe it captures an essential feature of human politics.

Babak Makkinejad

You do not understand Germany - or indeed Europe. There is no such thing as "German of Turkish Descent" - the Germans consider them aliens.

It took centuries for Schwabians to become Germans...

Jews never became Rus in Russia.

Europe is not America....


Fred, yes there weren't that many right-wing protesters. But this is only a part of the scene on the square in front of the main station and cathedral. Shot taken with station on your back. Cathedral outside the frame to the left.

The official narrative as to why they were kept there, as I encountered it on the local news, was, police felt the crowd was up to trouble not least since many were intoxicated by beer. But I have to admit that this perfectly confirms my preconceptions. Maybe too perfectly? ;)

The German high court banned a video address of Erdoghan to his supporters. There are legitimate concerns as to Kudish/Turkish on German streets, it feels. We had that before. Now we might get Turkish AKP supporters (or http://www.uetd.de/) versus Gulenists, versus Kurds. This is no doubt a slightly new phenomenon, since the AKP is in power. With matters heating up. But Dani Roderik made me wonder yesterday:

But these guys surely would have created trouble, no matter their comparatively low numbers. Cologne police always keeps "right" and "left" apart. Emotions run high during such events. Besides, they cannot afford Cologne police making news again.

Besides remember the German extreme right as it surfaced in 2011?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Underground Predominantly victims with a Turkish background.



Yes, repress your own citizens because the Turks would get upset if the Germans exercised the same rights in Germany as foreign nationals seem to have.



As Arnaud de Borchgrave put it Europeans are writing their own epitaph. LeaNder's reply's to me being a case in point.



As an addendum to my article above, an article at al monitor which I have discovered today, with many more factual information than I could garner, but basically the same conclusions.


The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

February 2021

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Blog powered by Typepad