Tag Archives: politics

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). 

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. 

Diary of the Second Addams Administration 13.

Posted on by
Reply

            President Donald Trump sees great virtues in building a tariff wall around America.  Is that good or bad?  It depends. 

Trump’s argument is that tariffs are good for America over the long run, even if they have short-term costs.  “Other countries have used tariffs against us for decades, and now it’s our turn.”  Trump has claimed that tariffs will make the American economy “even more self-sufficient, producing more of its energy, lumber, steel, and computer chips than ever before.”[1]  If those hopes come true, there will many jobs—white collar as well as blue collar—created.  The American economy’s supply-chain will become much more secure in a time of rising international tensions.  Trump has conceded that America would experience a “period of transition,” which might include a recession.[2]  

Critics argue that tariffs are bad for America and for everyone else.  First, tariffs raise prices for consumer countries, not for producer countries.[3]  Second, if one country raises tariffs, the other country or countries will raise tariffs on the first country’s goods.  This will reduce exports in what becomes a” trade war.”  Slowing down the domestic economy by raising consumer prices and reducing employment in sectors tied to exports could bring on a recession. 

President Donald Trump has followed a very erratic course on actually imposing tariffs.  Is that good or bad?  It’s bad. 

In early March 2025, Trump imposed a 20 percent tariff on goods imported from China[4] and 25 percent tariffs on goods from Mexico and Canada.[5]  China responded with 10-15 percent tariffs on American corn and wheat.  The stock market tumbled and Trump quickly announced a month-long pause on tariffs on imported cars and parts.  The Wall Street Journal wondered “which side of the tariff bed Trump will wake up on” in days to come?  They got a quick answer.  In mid-March 2025, Trump imposed a 25 percent tariff on all steel and aluminum (both unprocessed and turned into something else—look at your soda can) imported into the United States. 

No one seemed to care about the tariff hike for China, but critics insisted that Canada and Mexico take about a third of America’s exports and send the US valuable commodities. 

Is this what got Trump elected?  Journalists posit that Trump won election on the promise of a vibrant economy, low inflation and unemployment, and controlled immigration.  That’s not all they’re getting.  One recent poll reported that 56 percent of respondents disapproved of Trump’s management of the economy.  He tariff-bombed China in his first administration and talked about tariffs in the campaign for his second.  Apparently, no one took him seriously.  Now he is acting like a real lame-duck president: doing what he thinks is right regardless of the polls or the pols—or the stock market.  Albeit in an erratic, bloviating, Trump-like fashion. 

[1] Quoted in “The Trump economy: Adrift in a sea of tariffs,” The Week, 28 March 2025, p. 34. 

[2] “Trump tariffs cause stock market whiplash,” The Week, 21 March 2025, p. 4. 

[3] Which is exactly the purpose of tariffs.  More expensive imports create a market for cheaper domestic producers. 

[4] Previously 10 percent.  The key question becomes whether the American producers can deliver equal goods at a lower cost. 

[5] Even though all three countries are members of the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) that replaced the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).  “U.S. tariffs spark North American trade war,” The Week, 14 March 2025, p. 5. 

Diary of the Second Addams Administration 12.

Posted on by
Reply

            For a long time, the United States has imposed lower tariffs on the goods of its trading partners than those trading partners have imposed on American goods.  The US did this because the national strategy was to foster a world of openish markets in pursuit of “peace, prosperity, and American exports around the world.”[1]  A month into office, President Donald Trump is announcing the end of the Age of America as the “benevolent hegemon.”  Now it is “pursuing its own interests first.”[2]  Trump’s actions began wreaking havoc in the international economy.  He doubled the tariff on Chinese goods, announced a looming 25 percent tariff on imported steel and aluminum, and raised the possibility of tariffs on semi-conductors, drugs (and not the fentanyl kind either), and cars. 

            Take the example of cars.  About 8 million of the 16 million new cars sold in the United States each year are manufactured abroad, chiefly in Germany, Japan, and South Korea.  Many more “foreign” cars are manufactured in American plants.  In late February 2025, President Donald Trump raised the idea of imposing a 25 percent tariff on car imports.[3]  One solution might be for foreign car-makers to increase production in their American facilities, while reducing exports to the United States.  Fine, except that a) it takes along time to build a car plant and recruit a work force, and Trump might be out of office before the plants are ready, taking his tariffs with him back to Mar-a-Lago; and b) if they cut manufacturing in their home country, they will have to lay off many workers there, as well as taking the political heat that comes with the lay-offs. 

            Then there’s steel.[4]  Many foreign countries subsidize their own steel industries at the expense of American producers.  Eighty percent of America’s steel imports come from “friendly” countries (Europe, Japan), rather than from China.[5]  Trump wants to privilege American steel-producers over those foreign competitors.  American steel-consumers—car companies for example, and their American customers—will have to bear the transitional costs. 

            The push-back came swift and hard.  Basically, “He did this in his first term and the results were BAD!”  Prices rose, American companies saw their sales fall, and car companies came under a lot of financial stress.[6]  Moreover, bullying our friends gains us nothing.  Canada—the country that invented hockey—dropped the gloves, at least rhetorically for the moment.[7]

On the other hand, some observers thought that the threat of tariffs could serve a useful purpose.  It could bring foreign trading partners to renegotiate existing trade deals.[8]  In short, Trump isn’t serious about actually imposing the tariffs. 

But what if he is serious?  And what if he insists on including the reduction of Non-Tariff Barriers (NTB) to trade?  This would include things like currency manipulation, and the taxation and regulation of American businesses abroad.  Eeeek! 

[1] “Trump’s tariffs: A new era of protectionism,” The Week, 28 February 2025, p. 34.    

[2] See Oren Cass, quoted in “Tariffs: Does Trump know what he is doing?” The Week, 14 February 2025, p. 6. 

[3] “Trade: Tariffs may hike foreign car prices,” The Week, 28 February 2025, p. 32. 

[4] “Trum brings back steel tariffs,” The Week, 21 February 2025, p. 32. 

[5] That is, our “friends” have been harming us for decades in the service of domestic interest groups. 

[6] “Trump’s tariffs: A new era of protectionism,” The Week, 28 February 2025, p. 34. 

[7] “Canada: Proudly resisting Trump’s bullying,” The Week, 14 February 2025, p. 14. 

[8] “Tariffs: Does Trump know what he is doing?” The Week, 14 February 2025, p. 6. 

Diary of the Second Addams Administration 11.

Posted on by
Reply

            The year began with a menacing fact about Sino- American trade.  In the course of the last year of the interminable Biden presidency, China’s global trade surplus hit $992 billion, the highest ever.  China’s surplus in trade with the United States reached almost $525 billion.[1]  That’s over half of the total trade surplus for the year.  This news came as a grim confirmation of fears to people who think that trade deficits represent job losses in the deficit country, represent a victory for the chief rival of the United States, and that China is trying to export its way out of grave domestic economic problems. 

            This fact provides important background to President-elect Donald Trump’s tariff policy.  Trump had promised to impose tariffs “on Day 1.”  He didn’t quite do that.  No sooner was he inaugurated than Trump said that he was considering a 10 percent increase on the existing tariffs on imports from China and a 25 percent tariff on imports from Canada and Mexico.[2]  The tariffs would go into effect on 1 February 2025. 

“He’s a fake!” chortled Never-Trump pundits in early January 2025.[3]  He campaigned on levying tariffs of 10-20 percent on all imports from everywhere.  Now the President-elect is talking about focused tariffs on a few things.  Others took a more nuanced view.  This is his second term, so people have become accustomed to his “bluster.”  More than likely, he talks about tariffs in order to “squeez[e] out some concessions.”[4]

            In the eyes of critics, there are two different issues here.  The first is economic warfare against China.  America’s aggressive rival[5] has some serious weak spots.  Most noticeably, these include “a spiraling property market, perilous local government finances, a shrinking labor force, and brittle consumer confidence.”[6]  Since the first Trump administration, many American companies have been pulling back from China.  The country is vulnerable to pressure. 

            China hawks felt ambivalent about tariffs.  The very smart Aaron Friedberg,[7] took a hopeful view.  To resist “Chinese mercantilism,” tariffs “in a more targeted, tailored form” can be useful.  Tariffs on everyone else, however, would impede formation of an anti-China alliance.[8]  Meanwhile, China is exploiting every opportunity to build an anti-American alliance.  Why increase the number of volunteers? 

            The second is the tariffs on everyone else.  The tariffs on Mexico and Cananda “could throw American diplomatic relationships and global supply chains into disarray.”[9] 

            What does China do with all the dollars it earns from selling to America? 

[1] “The bottom line,” The Week 24 January 2025, p. 32. 

[2] “Trade: Trump readies tariffs on rivals and allies,” The Week, 31 January 2025, p. 32. 

[3] No, he’s all too real. 

[4] Gabriel Rubin in Reuters, quoted in “Trade: Trump readies tariffs on rivals and allies,” The Week, 31 January 2025, p. 32.

[5] “A toughish lot, but very go ahead, rather like we were in the old days.”—Sam Collins to George Smiley in John LeCarre, Smiley’s People. 

[6] Eswar Prasad in NYT, quoted in “China: Does Trump really want a trade war?” The Week, 17 January 2025, p. 34.

[7] See: Aaron Friedberg – Wikipedia 

[8] Friedberg’s blog at Foreign Policy, quoted in “China: Does Trump really want a trade war?” The Week, 17 January 2025, p. 34. 

[9] Ana Swanson in NYT, quoted in “Trade: Trump readies tariffs on rivals and allies,” The Week, 31 January 2025, p. 32. 

Why did Britain hesitate to rearm in the Thirties?

Posted on by
Reply

            Adolf Hitler came to power in Germany at a particularly difficult time for Britain.  The decision to re-arm, to prepare for another great war—even if could be limited to a merely “European War”[1]—proved agonizing and divisive. 

On the one hand, Britain faced the Great Depression which drove up unemployment, forced Britain off the Gold Standard (21 September 1931), and began the process of converting Britain from a policy of free trade to a system of protective tariffs.[2]  The tariffs went into effect in February 1932.  They encouraged import-substitute re-industrialization.  By one later estimate, the tariffs led to a rise of real annual GDP by 4 percent (1932-37), on a par with Nazi Germany.  These events marked a dramatic turning point in Britain’s national policies. 

The ship’s pilot guiding this turn was Neville Chamberlain.[3]  Having devoted his political career to domestic reform, he foresaw the GDP growth serving to revitalize the British economy through industrial modernization and a social policy that eased old divisions, rather than preparation for another world war.[4]  Threatened by Japan in the Far East, the Cabinet formally abandoned the “Ten Year Rule” (March 1932).  Even so, the government remained preoccupied by the “very serious financial and economic situation.”  It was determined to resist big increases in military spending. 

On the other hand, the forces opposed to war and the preparation for war occupied a strong position in political.  These forces coalesced around the League of Nations.  Although the League had been the brain-child of American President Woodrow Wilson, it found its strongest popular support in Britain.  Britain’s League of Nations Union acted as a powerful pressure-group.[5]  Its goals were to promote international justice and human rights; disarmament and the settlement of international conflicts by peaceful means; and reliance upon collective security, rather than alliances.[6]  Membership rose from about 250,000 in the mid-Twenties to over 400,000 in 1931. 

Anti-militarism became a public fixture in the early Thirties.  Examples include the Oxford “King and Country” debate (February 1933); the East Fulham by-election, in which the peace candidate thrashed the rearmament candidate (October 1933); the “Peace Ballot,” (results June 1935), which strongly endorsed League membership, universal disarmament, abolition of air forces and the arms industry, and collective security against aggression; and the ferocious opposition to the Hoare-Laval Pact (December 1935).  This only worked if everyone played.    

            Hitler’s withdrawal from the Disarmament Conference (October 1933) ended real hope. 

[1] John Lukacs, The Last European War: September 1939-December 1941 (1976). 

[2] See: Import Duties Act 1932 – Wikipedia  This Act formed a first step in a much larger plan.  In Summer 1932, representatives of Britain and the Dominions met in Ottawa.  They agreed upon a policy of high tariffs around the Empire; low tariffs within the Empire; and Keynesian ideas about demand management (low interest rates, increased government spending).  See: British Empire Economic Conference – Wikipedia for an under-developed sketch. 

[3] Neville Chamberlain – Wikipedia 

[4] For some of the National government’s social reforms, see: Unemployment Act 1934 – Wikipedia;

 Special Areas (Development and Improvement) Act 1934 – Wikipedia; Special Areas (Amendment) Act 1937 – Wikipedia; Factory Acts – Wikipedia; Coal Act 1938 – Wikipedia; Holidays with Pay Act 1938 – Wikipedia;

[5] Members of the Liberal Party provided much of the leadership for the group, but important Conservatives also joined.  At the same time, many Conservative politicians and voters saw the League as ridiculous.

[6] See: Collective security – Wikipedia, and Disarmament – Wikipedia.  Both have useful bibliographies.   

Diary of the Second Addams Administration 10.

Posted on by
Reply

            Elon Musk kept swinging his scythe through the federal workforce, firing 7,000 people at the IRS and an additional 1,400 from Veterans Affairs, while warning the Environmental Protection Agency to expect a 65 percent reduction in force from its current 17,000 employees.[1] 

            Then, at the end of February 2025, Elon Musk had the Office of Personnel Management e-mail, oh, several million federal civilian employees.  The message instructed them to submit a five bullet-point list of the major stuff that they had done the previous week.  Failure to comply would be taken as a resignation. 

            Federal employees, their union representatives, and the Democratic Party responded with their competing imitations of Albert Goldman.[2]  About a dozen Secretaries of Departments rallied to the defense of their employees.  The latter seemed to some observers like the leaders being captured by their followers.  President Donald Trump may have seen it in that light because he gave Musk pride of place at a televised Cabinet meeting. 

            The themes in the criticism were as before: Musk is an “unelected” person culling the ranks of the unelected employees wielding the power of the federal government; and lots of Americans—Republicans and Democrats alike–depend upon the federal government for income or medical care or education.  The appeal to elected politicians to keep things as they are against the actions of the unelected man-child genius seeking to avert national bankruptcy captures the spirit of the enterprise.  It is disruption of the Old Order and NOT kicking the can down the road that arouses resistance.  In addition, it is argued that cutting employees from Veterans Affairs will harm veterans.  In reality, for at least twenty years people who deal with Veterans Affairs have been complaining that it is the most messed-up organization that they have ever seen.  A string of good leaders (e.g. Eric Shinseki) have failed in their efforts to fix it.  Finally, it is asserted that the cuts to the IRS will just hinder efforts to get the rich to pay their “fair share.”  This is an ever-green political issue.  Democrats like having it as an issue with which to bash the Republicans, but they will not actually raise taxes on the rich when they could.[3] 

            Then, to be asked to briefly state what work one did last week doesn’t seem unusual or difficult.  Corporations—both in America and around the world—carry out reductions in force whenever the balance sheet tips too much into the red.  Often, they’re not too strategic about where the axe falls.  It isn’t regarded as the end of the world. 

            On the other hand, government isn’t a business.  Ideally, the government does things for society that are essential or highly desirable, but for which there is no reasonable private sector provider.  The Departments of Defense, State, Justice, the Treasury, and the CIA and NSA for example.  Then there is the government’s role in funding and coordinating scientific and medical research, and managing a system of air traffic control.  Moreover, the “bureaucracy” isn’t staffed only with drones.  It recruits many specialist experts.  Sweeping purges will cause a bunch of things to go wrong soon.  And once the experts get the heave, it will be hard to lure them back. 

[1] “DOGE slashes workforce with Trump’s backing,” The Week, 7 March 2025, p. 5. 

[2] The character played by the great Nathan Lane in “The Birdcage” (dir. Mike Nichols, 1996). 

[3] The Biden administration’s “American Rescue Plan” passed the Senate 50-49; its “Inflation Reduction Act” passed the Senate 51-50.  Both used “Reconciliation” to by-pass the filibuster.  Higher taxes easily could have been included if they actually wanted to make the rich pay “their fair share.”  Same for repealing the “debt ceiling.” 

“I hate rude behavior in a man.”–Woodrow F. Call, “Lonesome Dove.”

Posted on by
2

What is a “manly man”?  My grandfather pretty much abandoned his wife and two sons during the Twenties.  My Dad grew up in the Depression.  He picked fruit in California; logged in Montana; worked on a government survey ship in the Gulf of Alaska; was the assistant manager of a movie theater in Portland, Oregon; soldiered on Guadalcanal and Bougainville; was a ski-bum in Sun Valley and a cab driver in Seattle and Anchorage; and—eventually—owned a small business that put a roof over our heads and food in our bellies, along with many other things.  He smoked two packs of Camels a day.  He read a lot of high-end trash.[1]  He knew many “colorful” expressions, but he did not use them indoors or in front of women and children.  He never raised his voice to–let alone hit–my Mom or me and my siblings.  (He did punch out a tug-boat captain who disrespected my Mom.)  He taught me to sail, to ski, to drive a car (with a manual gear-shift), and to shoot both long guns and pistols (which we had around the house in an unlocked rack) and gun safety (“always check in the breech”).  He believed in individual achievement and personal responsibility.  He always voted straight-ticket Republican, except for the time he voted for McGovern because he was so angry about the waste and lies of the Vietnam War.  He intensely disliked rich swells, especially rich swells who went into politics and took up the cause of the “common man.”  (This meant FDR and all the Kennedys.)  He and my Mom believed that “a woman’s place was in the home” and that “a man had to provide for his family.”  He and my Mom were casual racists, just like most other White people of the time outside the South.  He was the finest man I’ve ever known. 

He offered an example of “traditional masculinity,” rather than “toxic masculinity.”  That distinction began when the term “toxic masculinity” was taken up by men’s movements in the 1980s and 1990s.  Gender differences are essentially hard-wired, rather than socially constructed.[2]  “Toxic” masculinity could appear where men had lost contact with real or “deep” masculinity.  Masculinity became “toxic” when men lost comradery with other men and when they repressed emotions.  From there, the term crept into academic studies and, from there, into the media in the 2010s.  Along the way, however, it became generalized to describe ALL masculinity.  In part, this seems to have occurred among people—feminists, gay-rights activists–struggling courageously for their own liberation.  In part, this sprang from “gray wolf” behavior among academics.[3]  In part, this seems to have resulted from the intellectual laziness of people in the media.[4]  There followed a moral panic over behavior attributed to many men.[5] 

Social movements swing like a pendulum, taking ever more extreme positions.  So it was with “toxic masculinity.”  Recent studies find that many male Trump voters support abortion rights, gender equality, and openness about emotions, but don’t believe that women’s progress has come at the expense of men.  They’re just sick of being stigmatized.[6]   

Believing a man should provide for his family is preferable to abandoning that family. 

[1] Kenneth Roberts, C.S. Forester, and John D. MacDonald. 

[2] On “Social Construction” see Social construction of gender – Wikipedia  Lots of jargon. 

[3] Pack hunter – Wikipedia 

[4] See: Toxic masculinity – Wikipedia, “Terminology.” 

[5] Moral panic – Wikipedia 

[6] Claire Cain Miller, “Many Trump-Voting Men Feel Under Fire, Yet Defy Stereotypes,” NYT, 5 March 2025. 

Diary of the Second Addams Administration 9.

Posted on by
Reply

New York City Mayor Eric Adams had been critical of President Joe Biden’s policy on illegal immigration.  He became so after the administration’s “Remain in Texas” policy had collapsed, flooding Democratic cities in the North with illegal immigrants.  Adams and newly-elected President Donald Trump drew together.  So far, so good.  Bipartisanship is still possible! 

However, a problem existed.  Federal prosecutors in the Southern District of New York had accused Adams of various serious crimes.  It seemed possible, if not certain, that Adams would be out as mayor. 

In mid-February 2025, Acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove declared that the mayor’s parochial legal difficulties were harming his ability to assist the President’s national immigration policy.[1]  Bove ordered Danielle Sassoon, the acting United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, to drop the charges against Adams “without prejudice.”  Sassoon requested a meeting with Attorney General Pam Bondi to discuss her concerns that this was a corrupt bargain; Bondi declined to meet with Sassoon, who then resigned.  Bove then ordered Sassoon’s deputy to dismiss the charges.  He got a less politely phrased response than Sassoon had provided, and the deputy resigned.  So did a bunch of other lawyers who wouldn’t be caught dead doing what Bove wanted.  Finally, the charges did get dismissed.  Then four deputy mayors of New York City resigned.[2] 

At the moment, Adams remains Mayor.  Perhaps not for long.  Voters will have a chance to turf him out at the next election.  They’re likely to do so.  Adams is besmirched by the deal, so the chances of him losing re-elections are increased.  New York Governor Kathy Hochul has contemplated removing him from office even before an election.  The Department of Justice retains great leverage over Adams.  The charges were dismissed “without prejudice.”  This means that they can be reinstated whenever the Trump administration finds Adams insufficiently co-operative with something (anything) in the future.  Or even when he is no more use to them. 

What does the Trump administration get out of this deal?  It gets unrestricted access to the denizens of New York City’s vast jail system.  Any illegal immigrant who is arrested for something is liable to find themselves on a federal government airplane bound for a banana republic.[3]  In effect, the NYPD becomes an extension of the effort to expel illegal immigrants. 

Trump, Bove, and Adams have come in for much abuse in the media for their apparent deal.  So they should.  If the sweeping pardons for the 6 January 2021 rioters[4] are added to this deal, then the administration can’t escape being called for its own “weaponization” of the law. 

Nor is Adams out of the woods even over the short-term.  Bove may have requested that the charges be dropped, but the presiding judge has to agree to it.  It isn’t certain that he will agree.  On the one hand, the whole thing stinks to high Heaven.  On the other hand, prosecutors cut deals with criminals all the time.  They do so when the alleged criminal agrees to cooperate with the government in pursuit of some larger goal.  The government can argue that there’s no difference between Adams and a drug-dealer.  OK, not a good re-election campaign slogan. 

[1] “The U.S. at a Glance,” The Week, 21 February 2025, p. 7. 

[2] “Justice Department: Condoning corruption under Trump?” The Week, 28 February 2025, p. 6. 

[3] I can just hear people saying “You mean ANOTHER banana republic!” 

[4] “Cop-beaters” in the frank words of the Wall Street Journal.

Diary of the Second Addams Administration.

Posted on by
Reply

            Is the bureaucracy of the Executive Branch of the government of the United States lean, agile, innovative, and filled with able idealists?  Or is it bloated, hide-bound, unwieldy, and ill-suited to the needs of the new century?  It’s a fair question to ask. 

President Donald Trump and Court Wizard Elon Musk appear to believe that it is the latter, rather than the former.  For Trump, there seems to be the added flaw in the bureaucracy’s hostility to him during his first term.  He may well want “revenge” both for their past hostility and to prevent anticipated resistance in his second term.  For his part, Musk portrayed himself as battling an “unelected bureaucracy” in order to “restore the will of the people.” 

Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) has taken on the task of reducing the federal workforce.[1]  In mid-February 2025, DOGE began firing people in big chunks and very rapidly.  In addition to the thousands of US AID workers on the chopping block, the Department of Agriculture took a heavy hit: 4,000 at the Department and a further 3,400 at its subordinate National Forest Service.  Health and Human Services lost 5,200; the Energy Department lost 2,000; and the Department of Veterans Affairs lost 1,000.[2]  Within these departments, some areas were hit particularly hard: the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health, the Food and Drug Administration, and the National Nuclear Security Administration.  More lay-offs took place at the Federal Aviation Agency and the National Park Service.[3]  All this is alarming to terrifying. 

At the same time, and with murky intent, DOGE went after the vast troves of data on ordinary Americans held by the federal government in the data centers of the Social Security Administration, the Internal Revenue Service, the Treasury, and other agencies.[4] 

In his first term, Trump caught a lot of criticism for treating China as a real danger by plastering it with tariffs, trying to build a wall at the southern border to resist massive illegal immigration, and denigrating our NATO allies.  Then Joe Biden kept the tariffs, Russia’s attack on Ukraine revealed that the European allies have been pacifists for decades, and the failure to resist illegal immigration helped cost the Democrats the 2024 election.  Now, some Democrats are admitting that a problem exists, even while they drag on Trump’s coat-tails.  One journalist at the Washington Post accepted that problems did exist with the federal bureaucracy, but objected to indiscriminate mass firing.  On the other hand, others stuck to their last, claiming that the firings were part of “a coup.”  Competent civil servants would be driven out to make space for incompetent Trump loyalists.  That argument is hard to refute when Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Kash Patel, and Peter Hegseth can be offered as evidence. 

Two questions arise.  One, is Trump just trying to scare the bureaucracy into compliance?  Two, how can a log-jammed legislature reform and reduce a behemoth? 

[1] “Trump makes mass layoffs across government,” The Week, 28 February 2025, p. 4. 

[2] Currently, the federal government employs about 2.1 million civilians and about 600,000 military personnel. 

[3] For context, the Department of Agriculture which includes the National Forest Service, employed 93,000 people at the end of the Biden administration, so the cuts amount to about 7.5 percent of the workforce; Health and Human Services employed about 83,000 people, so the cuts amount to about 6 percent of the workforce; The Department of Energy employed 14,000 civilians and 93,000 contractors, so the cuts amounted to 14 percent of the civilian workforce; and the Department of Veteran Affairs employed over 400,000 people, so the cuts are microscopic. 

[4] Why do they need such information?  They aren’t saying.  Why not?  They’re up to something.