Author Archives: jsh54

Missak Manouchian.

Posted on by
Reply

            Off and on, the Ottoman Empire persecuted Armenians.  Many of the victims sought greener fields outside the empire.  Wherever they went, the emigres stayed in touch with other emigres and with their families at home.  In 1905, some of them established the Armenian General Benevolent Union.  The AGBU raised money to send seeds and farm equipment to Armenians still inside the Empire.  Then came the Ottoman Empire’s terrible genocide of the Armenians.  The AGBU provided much humanitarian aid at the time, but then also established orphanages to care for the hordes of children who had lost their parents.  Later, they paid for the higher education of talented Armenian orphans. 

Missak Manouchian (1909-1944) benefitted from the help of the AGBU.  He lost his parents in the genocide (must have been about 6 years old), grew up in an orphanage in French-ruled Lebanon, and went to France (1925) in search of work.  Eventually, he became a lathe-operator at Citroen near Paris.  Naturally, he joined the Confederation General du Travail (CGT), a trades union group.  He lost that job when the Depression hit France in the early Thirties.  Disappointed, like almost everyone else, in capitalism and parliamentary democracy, he joined the French Communist Party in 1934. 

He also had literary and intellectual aspirations.  From 1935 to 1937, the Party put him to editing an Armenian-language literary magazine, and working on a Party-inspired Relief Committee for Armenia. 

The Hitler-Stalin Pact (August 1939) led the French government to ban the Communist Party when war broke out a few days later.  Manouchian was one among many communists who were arrested.  Like others, he was then released for military service.  Assigned to a unit remote from the front lines, Manouchian was discharged after Germany defeated France in Summer 1940.  He went back to Paris; got arrested by the Germans; got released.  Then there is a gap in what is known of his life.  After Germany attacked the Soviet Union in June 1941, the Communist Party went to war in a serious way.  Manouchian seems not to have been involved or involved much in any Resistance work.  The most likely thing is that he did some writing for clandestine newspapers. 

Things changed in February 1943.  Boris Milev, a Bulgarian Communist living in France, recruited Manouchian for the group being led by Boris Holban.[1]  In Summer 1943, Manouchian replaced Holban as head of the group.  In September 1943, Manouchian ordered a team to kill an SS General in Paris.  They did and Heinrich Himmler demanded action.  He got it.  Holban had worried that the group’s many young men were careless about security.  He had wanted to back off for a while and increase security.  He had been right.  The Vichy police had already identified some of the group, who led them to many others.  The French arrested 22 members of the group in November 1943.  They were turned over to the Germans, tried and executed in February 1944. 

Much later, an ugly quarrel over responsibility took place in the media.[2]   

Resistance movements were (and are) vulnerable.  They attracted enthusiasts who often were not suited by maturity or temperament or life experience to secret work.  Security services often have the bulge in all these areas, along with superior resources.  It can be a martyr’s game. 

[1] Boris Milev – Wikipedia 

[2] See: Affiche Rouge – Wikipedia and Missak Manouchian – Wikipedia.  These people deserved better. 

A Piece of Resistance.

Posted on by
Reply

            Nationalism preaches that all the people speaking the same language should be grouped together in one independent country.  Nationalism came to Rumania in the later 19th Century, when part of it escaped from the Ottoman Empire to form the new country.  However, many Rumanian-speakers still lived outside the country.  After Russia collapsed into revolution and civil war during the First World War, Rumania grabbed the mostly-Rumanian territory of Bessarabia (1918). 

            Anti-Semitism walked in daylight in Rumania.[1]  Jews had no rights and could not be citizens.  Most lived in miserable poverty.  A large Jewish community lived in Bessarabia, so the change of borders brought them under Rumanian rule.  In 1923, a new constitution—imposed by the Western powers—granted Jews citizenship.  Nothing else changed.  Many Jews pined for the Soviet Union which they believed to be a socialist utopia where religion didn’t matter. 

            Baruch Bruhman (1908-2004) began life as a Jewish Russian subject in Bessarabia; then became Rumanian.[2]  He rejected everything about the Rumanian state: he joined the illegal Communist Party (1929); went to jail for it (1930); deserted from the army during compulsory service (1932); went to jail for it; did organizational work for the Communist Party; fled to Czechoslovakia one step ahead of the police (1936); went to France to join the International Brigades fighting in the Spanish Civil War (1938), but arrived too late; worked for the French Communist Party (PCF) for a year; and enlisted in the French Foreign Legion under the name Boris Holban when the Second World War broke out (1939).[3] 

            The Germans captured Holban in June 1940, but he escaped in December 1940 and returned to Paris.  In June 1941, Germany attacked the Soviet Union.  All foreign Communist parties were ordered to attack the Germans to divert troops from the Russian front.  The PCF knew that the Germans would shoot a lot of French civilian hostages in reprisal.  Holban had spent his life on the run and had been to war.  The PCF set him to recruiting immigrant workers to kill Germans.  Holban found Rumanians, Hungarians, Poles, and Italians willing to fight the Germans.  Most were Jews and veterans of Spain.  If Germany won, they were doomed. 

            From August 1942 to June 1943, Holban’s group derailed trains, attacked factories, and killed 83 Germans on the streets of Paris.  Both the Germans and the French police hunted the “terrorists.”  Holban fell out with his PCF bosses.  They wanted more attacks; he wanted to slow down while concentrating on security.  In July 1943, Holban was replaced by Missak Manouchian, who accelerated attacks.  Then Manouchian was caught.  The PCF brought Holban back to run a rat-hunt for whoever had betrayed the group (December 1943). 

            Returning to now-Communist Rumania after the war, Holban soon fell into the whirlpool of the Stalinist purges.  Many years later, after he had re-settled in France (1984), he was accused of betraying Manouchian.  A storm followed, but Holban was proved innocent. 

            A puzzle: Was this Jewish resistance or Communist resistance or French resistance? 

[1] Even if vampires did not.  See: Bram Stoker, Dracula (1897); “Nosferatu” (dir. F. W. Murnau, 1922). 

[2] Renee Poznansky, Jews in France during World War II (2001). 

[3] This is very significant.  In August 1939, Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin did a deal with German dictator Adolf Hitler.  The Soviet Union would remain neutral in any war between Germany and other countries.  All foreign Communist parties were ordered to oppose their own nation’s war effort.  Bruhman/Holban was defying orders. 

Diary of the Second Addams Administration 14.

Posted on by
Reply

            History lessons.  The United States was a high tariff nation for a long time.[1]  By 1929, the average tariff on imported goods was 36 percent.  The Smoot-Hawley Tariff of 1930 raised the tariff by 6 percent.[2]  In comparison, the average American tariff under recent administrations has been 2 percent.  Trump’s tariffs elevate that to 23 percent.  So, for the moment, the Trump tariffs have a greater impact than did the Smoot-Hawley tariff.  (Give it a few years and maybe we’ll be living with still-higher Vance tariffs.)  

In 1971, President Richard Nixon wanted foreign countries to revalue the dollar.  To nudge them toward speedy agreement, he imposed a 10 percent surcharge on imports.  He got speedy agreement and the surcharge went away. 

Today.  How serious a blow to the American economy are the Trump tariffs?  Never mind the stock market and the headlines in the New York Times.[3]  The American tariffs (at least the current high rates) aren’t likely to topple a row of dominos.   Most countries aren’t eager to launch a trade war with anyone just because the United States has launched one with everyone.  Most countries remain committed to “globalization” and comparatively free trade. 

What is true of Europeans and non-Chinese Asians is also true of many Americans.  One recent poll reported that 54 percent of respondents opposed the tariffs, while 42 percent supported them.  Pressure from constituents may bring Republican members of Congress off the sidelines, at least on this issue. 

Then what about retaliatory tariffs on American goods?  This sounds a little odd when Americans are being told that tariffs on foreign imports is really a tax on ordinary Americans.  Same goes for tariffs on American goods in foreign countries.  Do democracies abroad suddenly want to impose possibly long-term “tax” increases on their own constituents? 

            So, it is not clear if American tariffs and foreign retaliation are a done deal for the long haul.  Many of the target countries want to cut a deal with the United States.  China is an exception.[4]  It’s fair to say that people are not entirely sure what President Donald Trump wants.  Does he want tariff equality with most of America’s trading partners, while battering the daylights out of China?  Does he want a “fortress America,” as many people believe or hope or fear?  If he does want a “fortress America,” would that system survive the end of his term? 

            In 1932, the British created a system called “Imperial Preference”: low to no tariffs around the members, combined with a high external tariff directed against the Americans.  Could Trump use tariff negotiations to create something similar?  Tariff equality within the bloc and high tariffs by directed against China.   

[1] Greg Ip, “An Unpopular and Survivable Trade War,” WSJ, 8 April 2025. 

[2] However, it denominated tariffs in dollar terms, not in percent of price terms.  As prices fell all around the world in the early Thirties, the absolute cost of the imports increased by much more than 6 percent.  They rose as high as an additional 19 percent above the 36 percent level. 

[3] Wait.  Wall Street and the NYT are on the same side?  The problems of the Democrats in a nutshell.  “We are the people our parents warned us about.” 

[4] It may turn out that Canada is also an exception.  Canadians are the nicest people in the world.  Until they’re not.  In Normandy in Summer 1944, an attacking Waffen SS unit over-ran a Canadian Army field hospital.  They killed everyone.  Then the Canadians counter-attacked and recaptured the hospital.  The Canadians never “captured” any more Waffen SS troops. 

An Episode in Appeasement: The Anglo-German Naval Agreement, June 1935 1.

Posted on by
Reply

            To put it mildly, France and Britain had a long history of conflict.[1]  Beginning in the 1890s, however, Germany’s pursuit of a large navy threatened Britain’s long-standing policy of maintaining naval dominance in order to safeguard the empire.  Britain responded to Germany’s fleet construction by settling many of its outstanding international conflicts and drawing closer to France.  The two countries fought shoulder to shoulder (although not without some elbows being thrown) during the First World War. 

            Once victory over Germany had been won, Britain and France began to drift apart.  First, the Versailles Treaty deprived Germany of a real navy.  The end of German naval power removed a thorn from the lion’s paw.  Britain’s policy turned to other things.[2]  Second, Anglo-American fair words and promises persuaded the French to back off their most extreme demands for guarantees against any revival of German power.[3]  Third, the two countries diverged on policy toward Central and Eastern Europe.  American repudiation of the security guarantee for France made the French all the more determined to strictly enforce the remaining terms.  This led to the Ruhr Crisis and the near-collapse of the German economy.[4]  That added to the chaos in Central and Eastern Europe.   

Yet Britain desired a restoration of stability in the region in hopes of creating markets for its troubled economy.  Later (in 1935), a diplomat at Britain’s Foreign Office would observe that “… from the earliest years following the war it was our policy to eliminate those parts of the Peace Settlement which, as practical people, we knew to be unstable and indefensible.”[5]  Anglo-American financial pressure led France to accept a reduction in German reparations to a level that the Germans might be willing to pay, at least for a while.  This was the Dawes Plan.[6]  Then British Foreign Secretary Austen Chamberlain[7] helped negotiate the Locarno treaty (1925).[8]  The treaty offered a general British guarantee of the existing frontiers in Western Europe.  However, the treaty offered nothing similar in Eastern Europe where France sought anti-German alliances among the “successor states” (Poland, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia).  If a future Germany attacked one of France’s allies, France would attack Germany.  However, the Locarno Treaty might require Britain to come to the aid of Germany, rather than France.  None of this was “good” from the French point of view.  It was merely the best that could be won under the circumstances. 

French Foreign Minister Aristide Briand tried to make the best of a bad deal.  His approach to the Americans about an alliance produced a meaningless general treaty open to all.  The “Kellogg-Briand Pact” (1928) renounced “aggressive war as an instrument of national policy.”  Even Weimar Germany signed. 

[1] History of France–United Kingdom relations – Wikipedia  Very sketchy, but you’ll get the drift: war, truce, war. 

[2] “Now that I’ve eaten, I see things in a different light.”—Groucho Marx. 

[3] The Americans soon repudiated their guarantee by refusing ratification of the Versailles treaty. 

[4] Occupation of the Ruhr – Wikipedia 

[5] Part of this sprang from the de-legitimation of the Versailles Treaty by people like Keynes and Sydney Fay. 

[6] Stephen A. Schuker, The End of French Predominance in Europe: The Financial Crisis of 1924 and the Adoption of the Dawes Plan.   

[7] Older half-brother of the future Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain. 

[8] Jon Jacobson, Locarno Diplomacy: Germany and the West, 1925-1929.    

Background to the Nuremberg Trials.

Posted on by
Reply

            Some soldiers (both commanders and their troops) have always behaved atrociously in war-time.  (Take a look at the Old Testament.)  Certain kinds of self-restraint in wartime grew up as a form of self-preservation.  You didn’t want to establish a policy of the victor slaughtering the vanquished if you might lose the next battle.  Still, there were always exceptions to such self-restraint.  People of different social groups within your own society or different races outside your society could not expect such treatment.  Neither European Americans nor Native Americans were much inclined to give the other side quarter. 

            This began to change during the 18th Century.  The Enlightenment established the idea of Humanitarian action.  Many Europeans and Americans turned against traditional practices like the use of torture as part of a judicial inquiry, human slavery, and the intolerance of religious difference.  Then the 19th Century witnessed a number of important reforms: compulsory, free public primary education, and the construction of sewer and clean drinking water systems to conquer diseases are two examples of these reforms.  The same effort to make human life better appeared in warfare.  The International Red Cross exemplified this trend. 

            The new mood led to international agreements (conventions) governing the conduct of war.  The First Geneva Convention (1864) defined the proper treatment of wounded and sick soldiers.  Forty thousand wounded soldiers had been left lying around the battlefield at Solferino.  The Hague Convention (1899) banned bombing from the air, the use of poison gas, and dum-dum bullets.  The Second Geneva Convention (1906) extended the First Geneva Convention to cover sailors in navies.  While the first two Geneva Conventions were generally observed by all countries that fought in the First World War, they often were violated in the Second World War and the Hague Convention has been widely ignored in greater or lesser degree. 

            The Allies were outraged by the behavior of the Central Powers during the First World War.  An effort was made to prosecute Ottoman leaders and commanders for the “crime against humanity” of the Armenian genocide.  This failed because of the obstruction of the Turks.  Also after the First World War, the British and the French tried to prosecute some German leaders for the way in which Germany had conducted war.  The Versailles Peace Treaty required Germany to turn over a number of military and civilian officials for trial by a military tribunal of the victor powers.  The Dutch refused to turn over the Kaiser (who had abdicated in November 1918) and the Germans refused to extradite the men demanded by the Allies.  Instead, a handful of lesser figures were tried at Leipzig in 1921, mostly on charges of mistreating prisoners.  The Kellogg-Briand Pact (1928) renounced “aggressive war as an instrument of national policy.”  This made war a “crime against peace.”  Germany signed.  The Third Geneva Convention (1929) set rules for the treatment of prisoners of war. 

            In January 1942 British, American, and Russian lawyers began writing a law that would allow the punishment of Germany’s leaders once Germany had been defeated.  At the Teheran Conference (November 1943), the irrepressible Joe Stalin suggested shooting 50,000-100,000 German officers and letting it go at that.  After the Moscow Conference (later in November 1943), the Allies announced that Germans who had committed atrocities would be sent to those countries where they had committed the crimes for trial, while the top leaders would be judged by the Allies.  Germany surrendered in May 1945.  In August 1945 the victors announced the terms of the trials.  In addition to all those to be tried for “war crimes” as then understood, the Nazi leaders would be tried for “crimes against humanity” (see: Armenian genocide) and “crimes against peace” (see: Kellogg-Briand Pact).  This set the stage for the Nuremberg Trials. 

Scalawag.

Posted on by
Reply

            During the post-Civil War “Reconstruction” of the defeated Southern states, Democrats referred to local Whites who had become Republicans as “scalawags.”[1]  One such was John W. Stephens (1834-1870) of North Carolina.[2]  Stephens had grown up in difficult circumstances[3] and with none of the advantages enjoyed by the middle and upper ranks of Southern society.  He spent some time hawking religious tracts, then found work as a tobacco trader in South Carolina.  Along the way he became a husband, father, and widower with a young child in his care, then once again a husband and father.  He was back in North Carolina when the war began.  With two young children to support, he did not join the rush to the colors.  He spent the war commandeering horses for the army; then worked as an “impressment agent” collecting draftees.  By 1865, there were probably many people in the area who thought ill of Stephens. 

            After the war, Stephens went back to tobacco trading.  However, tumultuous change filled the post-war years.  The Thirteenth Amendment, abolishing slavery (1865); the Reconstruction Acts imposing federal controls on former rebel states (1867); the Fourteenth Amendment, granting full citizenship to the freed people (1867); and the Fifteenth Amendment, guaranteeing the right to vote (1869), fell as hammer blows on Southern White beliefs.  Democrats responded by organizing the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) to roll back Black voting rights and the Republican party.  Many murders occurred in the Piedmont area. 

Stephens cast his lot with the new order.  He joined the Republican party and the Union League,[4] then got a job with the Freedmen’s Bureau.  He worked at organizing the freedmen to vote Republican and gained a reputation as a barn-burner.[5]  This turned him from a much disliked figure of ridicule and into an outright enemy of most Whites.  Like other White Republicans, Stephens suffered ostracism and threats, and went everywhere armed.

            In 1868 the freedmen he had been organizing elected him to the North Carolina state Senate.  That election was contested: the Democrats claimed that their candidate had been elected, while the Republican-dominated state Senate gave the seat to Stephens.  In all this he formed a part of the political machine assembled by Republican Governor William Holden.[6] 

In May 1870, Stephens–foolishly or provocatively–attended a Democratic nominating meeting in his home county.  Lured away by one of the members, Stephens was isolated, over-powered, and murdered.  Governor Holden responded by putting two counties under martial law and sending in reliable militia.  While a host of arrests followed, convictions did not.  Juries would not convict, judges directed trials.  Holden himself was impeached.  Power shifted more and more to Democrats, who eventually went on to impose White supremacy. 

The life and death of Stephens illuminate the reasons for an incomplete Reconstruction.   

[1] Scalawag – Wikipedia casts at least some light on the origin of the epithet. 

[2] Drew A. Swanson, A Man of Bad Reputation: The Murder of John Stephens and the Contested Landscape of North Carolina Reconstruction (2023). 

[3] His father was a tailor with five children who died in 1848. 

[4] Essentially an arm of the Republica party.  There’s an academic study: Michael W. Fitzgerald, The Union League Movement in the Deep South: Politics and Agricultural Change During Reconstruction  (1989). 

[5] Not a reference to his political oratory.  He was believed to be organizing the nighttime burning of the barns of former Confederates.  See: the short story by William Faulkner, “Barn Burning” (1939). 

[6] See: William Woods Holden – Wikipedia 

The Hossbach Memorandum of November 1937.

Posted on by
Reply

            After the Second World War, the victors grabbed up all the surviving Nazi leaders and put them on trial at Nuremberg.  In the mass trial, one piece of evidence introduced by the prosecutors was the so-called “Hossbach Memorandum.”  They argued that the document from late 1937 demonstrated Hitler’s determination to wage aggressive war.  It’s worth taking a look at the essentials of the document to understand the international situation in Europe during the run-up to war in 1939. 

What is the source of the document? 

Documents on Germany Foreign Policy 1918-1945
Series D, Volume 1: From Neurath to Ribbentrop (September 1937 – September 1938)
(Washington, United States Government Printing Office, 1949.)[1] 

What is the Hossbach memorandum? 

            It is NOT a complete transcript of what was said at the meeting.  Instead, the secretary, Hitler’s adjutant Colonel Hossbach, took rapid fire notes, then cleaned up and fleshed out those notes for the archive.  That doesn’t mean that it is unreliable.  The ability to take such notes and produce a generally acceptable summary of the meeting formed one of the qualifications for someone in Hossbach’s position.  The archives of governments are full of such documents. 

When?  November 5, 1937, FROM 4:15 to 8:30 P.M

Who was present? 

The Fuehrer[2] and Chancellor.

Field Marshal von Blomberg, War Minister.
Colonel General Baron von Fritsch, Commander in Chief, Army.   
Admiral Dr. h. c. Raeder, Commander in Chief, Navy.
Colonel General Goring, Commander in Chief, Luftwaffe.  [NB: The only Nazi other than Hitler.] 
Baron [Konstantin] von Neurath, Foreign Minister.  
Colonel [Friedrich] Hossbach.  Secretary. 

What was the context of the conference?

1919-1924: France creates a system of alliances in Eastern Europe (Poland, Czechoslovakia) to sorta replace the lost Russian alliance. 

1933-34: Hitler comes to power and consolidates the Nazi dictatorship.  

1934-1935: Political turmoil in France resulting from the Stavisky Scandal and the events of 6 February 1934.  Sharp divide between Left and Right. 

1935: Germany begins rearmament. 

1935: Britain begins rearmament, but chiefly with the hope of deterring German aggression. 

1935: Stresa Front.  Britain, France, and Italy agree to oppose any further German violations of the Versailles Treaty. 

1935: Italian invasion of Ethiopia led to a split with France and Britain, which raised the possibility of a war in the Mediterranean. 

1936: Germany re-occupies the Rhineland. 

1936: Popular Front [NB: alliance of the Communist, Socialist, and Radical parties] comes to power in France.  Economic turmoil and political polarization follows.  NB: The Radicals were middle-class and basically conservative.  The usual joke is that “they had their hearts on the left and their wallets on the right.” 

1936: Outbreak of the Spanish Civil War (1936-1939).  Germany and Italy aid the rebels led by Franco; Russia aids the Republic’s government; Britain and France try to stay neutral. 

1937: Japanese invasion of China.  Threatens Western possessions and trade rights.  Australia, New Zealand, and Canada alarmed.  This raises the prospect of a war in the Far East. 

Brief exposition of Hitler’s ideas of race and living space. 

            Race: Basically, Aryans versus Latins and Slav “untermenschen.”  Doesn’t get into his thoughts on Jews. 

            Space: The borders of Germany created by Bismarck (1866-1871) were a temporary compromise.  Now they were insufficient to German needs for a resource base.  Britain had a vast overseas empire; Russia and the United States had whole continents.  Germany needs land and natural resources to stand on a level with these other empires. 

Discussion of “Autarky.”  (Isolation from the world economy.) 

Participation in the world economy.  (Alternative to autarky.) 

            Britain and France: two hate-inspired powers.  NB: They aren’t going to share. 

“Germany’s problem could only be solved by means of force and this was never without attendant risk. The campaigns of Frederick the Great for Silesia and Bismarck’s wars against Austria and France had involved unheard-of risk, and the swiftness of the Prussian action in 1870 had kept Austria from entering the war. If one accepts as the basis of the following exposition the resort to force with its attendant risks, then there remain still to be answered the questions “when” and “how.” In this matter there were three cases [Falle] to be dealt with.” 

Three cases:

Case 1: Period 1943-1945.  Germany would decline relative to other powers after this time.  Therefore, Germany had to take action by this period. 

Case 2: Civil war in France.  That would keep the French from interfering in German action. 

Case 3: France at war with some other power, like Italy. 

In case of war with France, Germany’s first step must be to over-throw Czechoslovakia and Austria to remove the danger of an attack if things began to go badly for Germany in the west.  That would also insure that the Poles remained neutral. 

Looking forward to 1943-1945, Hitler foresaw the following. 

“Actually, the Fuehrer believed that almost certainly Britain, and probably France as well, had already tacitly written off the Czechs and were reconciled to the fact that this question could be cleared up in due course by Germany.”  NB: Munich Conference, September 1938. 

“Military intervention by Russia must be countered by the swiftness of our operations; however, whether such an intervention was a practical contingency at all was, in view of Japan’s attitude, more than doubtful.”  NB: Japanese leaders debated attacking South (Dutch East Indies, British Malaya, French Indo-China) OR attacking North (Russian Far East). 

“Should case 2 arise -the crippling of France by civil war- the situation thus created by the elimination of the most dangerous opponent must he seized upon whenever it occurs for the blow against the Czechs.” 

“The Fuehrer saw case 3 [i.e. war between France and Italy] coming definitely nearer; it might emerge from the present tensions in the Mediterranean, and he was resolved to take advantage of it whenever it happened, even as early as 1938.”  NB: Spanish Civil War provides one possible cause of war between France and someone else, but the Italians were winding up Arab nationalists in French-ruled Syria and Tunisia.  Germany occupied French attention, but what if a fit of Gallic vivacity caused the French to decide to sort out Mussolini? 

“If Germany made use of this war [between Italy and France-Britain] to settle the Czech and Austrian questions, it was to be assumed that Britain -herself at war with Italy- would decide not to act against Germany. Without British support, a warlike action by France against Germany was not to be expected.” 

How did the German generals respond to this exposition?

“In appraising the situation Field Marshal von Blomberg and Colonel General von Fritsch repeatedly emphasized the necessity that Britain and France must not appear in the role of our enemies, and stated that the French Army would not be so committed by the war with Italy that France could not at the same time enter the field with forces superior to ours on our western frontier.  NB: The French could bust up the Italians without much effort.  Enjoy it too. 

General von Fritsch estimated the probable French forces available for use on the Alpine frontier at approximately twenty divisions, so that a strong French superiority would still remain on the western frontier, with the role, according to the German view, of invading the Rhineland. In this matter, moreover, the advanced state of French defense preparations [Mobilmachung] must be taken into particular account, and it must be remembered apart from the insignificant value of our present fortifications -on which Field Marshal von Blomberg laid special emphasis- that the four motorized divisions intended for the West were still more or less incapable of movement.

In regard to our offensive toward the southeast, Field Marshal von Blomberg drew particular attention to the strength of the Czech fortifications, which had acquired by now a structure like a Maginot Line and which would gravely hamper our attack.” 

“Foreign Minister’s objection that an Anglo-French-Italian conflict was not yet within such a measurable distance as the Fuehrer seemed to assume.” 

Hitler responds:

“To the Foreign Minister’s objection that an Anglo-French-Italian conflict was not yet within such a measurable distance as the Fuehrer seemed to assume, the Fuehrer put the summer of 1938 as the date which seemed to him possible for this.  [NB: How far away is that?] 

In reply to considerations offered by Field Marshal von Blomberg and General von Fritsch regarding the attitude of Britain and France, the Fuehrer repeated his previous statements that he was convinced of Britain’s nonparticipation, and therefore he did not believe in the probability of belligerent action by France against Germany.  NB: “These are not the Britain and France of 1914.  I can smell their fear.”  That’s what I think he means. 

Should the Mediterranean conflict under discussion lead to a general mobilization in Europe, then we must immediately begin action against the Czechs. On the other hand, should the powers not engaged in the war declare themselves disinterested, then Germany would have to adopt a similar attitude to this for the time being.”

What events followed?

January-February 1938: Blomberg forced to resign in late January 1938 after the scandalous past of his new wife became known to the secret police; Fritsch forced to resign in early February 1938 after falsified allegations of homosexuality (worked up by Reinhard Heydrich, Goring’s right-hand man).  Hossbach had warned Fritsch about the scheme, so he was dismissed as Hitler’s adjutant two days later.

Early February 1938: Neurath: fired as Foreign Minister. 

March 1938: Germany suddenly annexes Austria. 

August-September 1938: Czech crisis led to the Munich settlement, giving Germany the Sudetenland. 

1938: Tide of battle turned decisively against the Republicans in Spain, although they remained in possession of large parts of the country. 

March 1939: Germany seizes the rest of Czechoslovakia.   Britain and France then extended a “guarantee” of the remaining existing borders in Central Europe.  In practice, this meant Poland. 

Summer 1939: France and Britain begin talks with the Soviet Union for a military alliance. 

What can we tell about Hitler’s intentions from this document? 

            Is the Hossbach Memorandum a “blueprint” for the war that came in September 1939? 

            Or is it something much more limited than that? 

            Is Hitler irrational and fantasizing in his analysis of the political situation? 

            Or is Hitler a hard-headed and cold-hearted realist? 

            What if the conference between Hitler and his military commanders and head diplomat wasn’t about informing them of his plans?  What if he just wanted to smoke-out any opposition to whatever it was that he wanted to do? 

            What would Neville Chamberlain have made of this document if he had the opportunity to read it between November 1937 (when it was created) and the annexation of Austria in March 1938 or the Munich conference in September 1938? 

            This last question is the premise for the historical thriller Munich, by Robert Harris (2017).  It was made into a Netflix movie, “Munich: The Edge of War” (2021) with Jeremy Irons as Neville Chamberlain. 

[1] In Spring 1945, specially created Anglo-American expert teams were sent to Germany to search for political and economic archives, particularly those which shed light on the origins of the war, and Germany’s operations and war aims. The experts assembled several tons of German Foreign Ministry documents discovered in the Harz Mountains and Thuringia, together with documents from other places of deposit at Marburg Castle. These established a unified collection of the captured material.  Subsequently, the documents were both microfilmed and translated and published on paper.  The originals were later returned to the government of the German Federal Republic. 

[2] “Leader”: title assumed by Hitler after the death of President von Hindenburg in 1934 when Hitler combined the offices of President and Chancellor (prime minister). 

Electricity.

Posted on by
Reply

Electricity went from being a cute pet trick in the 18th Century to being the vital energy of the later 19th and 20th Centuries.  Electricity could power factory machinery in a far more flexible and efficient fashion than could steam-engines.  Electricity came to play a direct part in the transformation process itself (steel, aluminum).  Electricity could light cities and homes, and made possible telegraphs and telephones.  Demand soared as more and more applications were created.  Think about air conditioners, vacuum cleaners, microwave ovens, televisions.  The 1950s and 1960s coincided with the growth of electricity consumption.  Moreover, electricity became a politically-contested industry.  It ended up being highly regulated.[1] 

Then, about 2000, electricity generation plateaued.  Electricity-consuming goods became more efficient; population growth slowed, and no new major consumers of electricity were created.  Electricity consumption slowed to a crawl, rising only about 1 percent per year. 

One effect of the plateauing is that electrical generators and transmitters cut back on physical plant and human capital, while shifting their energies into new ventures. 

The electricity itself came from one of two sources.  Some of it came from hydropower (damming rivers).  First and foremost, it came from generators that burned carbon (wood, coal, oil, gasoline, natural gas).  So electricity was “clean” at its end-point, but very “dirty” at its point of origin.  So what?  So environmental concerns grew increasingly powerful.  No one quarreled much with the end-stage electricity.  The creation-phase (generation) electricity caused great concern.  Burning lots of carbon released greenhouse gases and promoted global warming. 

The pursuit of efficiency has slowed, even stalled, the growth of carbon burning in many areas.  The consumption of gasoline, jet fuel, and heating oil have all stopped rising since about 2000.  No, it hasn’t made it go away. It’s just that the damage inflicted has been limited.   

Now we seem on the cusp of a new expansion of electricity consumption.  Things like data centers, new factories, and the response to global warming itself (electric cars, heat pumps) promise to push up the demand for electricity.  The environmental concerns are increasingly pressing as a long-term concern. 

What are the requirements of and constraints on non-carbon electricity generation?  Non-carbon electricity generation means solar, wind, hydro, and nuclear power.  Generation, transmission, distribution, and storage all cost a lot of money and pose technical problems. 

The shift of the industry toward stability twenty years ago now impedes rapid expansion.  Even building capacity.  Things might go a different way.  Then, the extensive regulations and shortage of workers also limits rapid expansion.  A utility that has bet big on renewable energy faces a fight year wait before it can connect to the electrical power grid.  A company can go bankrupt during the wait. 

It seems unreasonable to suppose that outmoded political and social beliefs can hold back science and technology for very long.  It also seems unreasonable to believe that lots of regulation can go hand in hand with lots of innovation. 

[1] Greg Ip, “Electricity, Not Oil, Is Growth’s Engine,” WSJ, 28 March 2025. 

JMO 1.

Posted on by
Reply

            Both the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times have been squalling for years about how China controls most of the “rare earth” metals that are vital for much modern technology.[1]  Also, they are hard to find and difficult to develop in the United States.  That is “We’re doomed!”  Then, turns out that there are important “rare earth” sources in…wait for it…Greenland and Ukraine.  President Donald Trump has made plain his determination to get a tight grip on both.  “Oh what an awful man he is, trying to insure the well-being of the United States in such a rude fashion!” 

            The same religious-fanatic dictator has been ruling Iran for 35 years.  The elections are rigged to keep out any representative of “liberal” opinion; there’s a big political prison into which prisoners disappear and from which they rarely emerge; the morality police can get away with murdering girls who don’t wear the hijab properly; corruption is rife and the upper ranks of society live well; living standards low for most people, in large part because the country spends a lot of its oil wealth on weapons systems and on the Revolutionary Guards Corps; the regime built a “ring of fire” around Israel not as a defense against the “Zionist entity,” but as the front line in Iran’s drive to revolutionize the Middle East on its own model; and the regime is close to producing nuclear weapons.[2]  Iran also is allied with Russia, China, and North Korea.  Lots of Iranians are unhappy with their masters.  Help them pressure the regime for meaningful change. 

            America built its economic power behind a high tariff wall in the later 19th and early 20th Century.  Yes, that kept prices for consumers high.  It also created a huge number of blue collar and white collar jobs; vast national wealth, and the industrial base that decided the outcomes of both World Wars and the Cold War.  After the Second World War, the United States adopted a free trade policy as a way to restore prosperity to a war-ravaged world.  Part of this plan involved accepting higher tariffs on American imports than the Americans imposed on their trading partners.[3]  The US was big, rich, and easy, while everywhere else was a pile of rubble. 

By the end of the Cold War (c. 1990), these conditions no longer applied.  It might have been a good time to renegotiate trade relations with many countries.  “But you didn’t do that, did you?”[4]  Instead, we doubled down by admitting China to the World Trade Organization (WTO).  Cheap consumer goods flooded the country, wrecking many industrial areas of the United States.  In the first Trump administration, the president wall-papered China with tariffs and harassed Huawei, allegedly because it posed a security threat.  First, enlightened opinion deprecated this departure from “norms.”  Then Biden continued them.  Now President Trump is hammering everyone with tariffs.  People say “well the tariffs on China are OK, but he’s also hitting our friends and allies.”  Give it a couple of years and everybody will be on-board, just like before. 

Trump’s cabinet is mostly made up of clowns.  The president is pursuing real policies along with the rest of his nonsense.  This is what you get when the Establishment abdicates on solving big problems for decades. 

[1] Take a gander at Rare Earths – The New York Times 

[2] Now big chunks of Iran’s client states are reeling from hard blows struck by Israel. 

[3] The US also accepted Canada adjusting the exchange rate to make American goods expensive in Canada and Canadian goods cheap in the US. 

[4] Looking at you, William Jefferson Clinton.  We should have re-elected George H. W. Bush. 

EDC.

Posted on by
Reply

            In the wake of the Second World War, Western European countries pondered some form of “unity.”  At first, this meant unity “at the peak”: countries surrendering some measure of sovereignty to form a “European” government.  This went nowhere.  So, attention turned to unity “at the base”: create specialized “European” institutions and let it cook.  This approach soon gave birth to the “European Coal and Steel Community” (ECSC, Schuman Plan).  It worked once, so try it in other areas (Common Market, Euratom). 

            The “wake of the Second World War” broadly overlapped the “dawning of the Cold War.”  The Americans and the Europeans shared an interest in preventing the Soviet Union from dominating Western Europe.[1]  Eventually (1947-), this led to the Marshall Plan and some CIA meddling in French and Italian elections.  Still, what if the Red Army marched west?  Military security rose up as an issue.  One part of the answer came in the creation of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).  The United States would keep troops in Europe as a “trip wire.”[2] 

            In dealing with these problems, “Europe” faced three problems.  First, the British didn’t want to join.[3]  Second, how were countries to reconcile with the Germans?  Third, Many American officials disdained the Europeans.  The purpose of Marshall Plan aid was “to get the Europeans on their feet and off our back.” 

            Then, in June 1950, North Korea invaded South Korea.  The “Cold War” wasn’t just going to be an economic and political struggle in Western Europe.  It could also be a military struggle.  American troops might have to be sent to the Far East or the Middle East.  So, Western Europeans would have to bulk-up their military forces.  In September 1950, Secretary of State Dean Acheson proposed re-arming West Germany.  The European responded with dismay.[4] 

            The “European integration” and American military themes soon came together.  In October 1950, French Defense Minister Rene Pleven suggested the creation of a “European Defense Community” to create a “European Army.”  West German troops would be raised, but would not be formed into units larger than battalion.  The German battalions would be mixed with troops from other countries and the higher commands would be held only by non-Germans.  The Americans reluctantly agreed if this was the only way to get West German troops. 

            Negotiation of the treaty dragged on for a year and a half.  The size of the German units rose to divisions, not battalions; and the European Army would be under the American commander of NATO, rather than independent.  After signatures (May 1952), the treaty went back to the national parliaments for ratification.  In the meantime, the context changed.  The Korean War ended in a truce; Joseph Stalin died and was succeeded by more moderate seeming men.  The EDC seemed less urgent.  The French parliament rejected the treaty (August 1954). 

            Afterwards, NATO admitted West Germany (and its army).  Europe enjoyed American nuclear “extended deterrence.”  Eventually, the Soviet Union fell.  Who needed armies now?[5] 

[1] Not much could be done about Soviet-controlled Eastern Europe what with the Red Army being what it was. 

[2] If Red Army troops attacked American troops, then nuclear weapons could come into play. 

[3] The British—understandably, labored under the illusion that they ranked among the “victors.”  In fact, Britain had suffered the ruin of its economy and loss of will to hold its empire.  Which is what Neville Chamberlain had feared. 

[4] See Category:Nazi war crimes in France – Wikipedia 

[5] European defense spending has fallen from 3.76 percent of GDP (1960) to 1.56 percent (2022).  That’s 58 percent.  European Union Military Spending/Defense Budget 1960-2025 | MacroTrends