Was Woodrow Wilson’s Administration a Blueprint for Nazi Germany?

I’m definitely not the first to ask this.

James Whitman a couple years ago published a whole book at Princeton Press called “Hitler’s American Model: The United States and the Making of Nazi Race Law

Whitman tells us of Nazi efforts to use American racist laws to help draft their Nuremberg Laws. It makes sense. So let’s explore a bit more.

Woodrow Wilson’s time in office (1912-1921) was clearly responsible for the rise of a “Second Empire” of the Ku Klux Klan (KKK), so was America even more of a blueprint for Nazi Germany?

Such a virulently racist President, with virtually no representative experience (he was elected to New Jersey office then almost immediately ran for President and was elected by just 42%) advocated for a “strong executive” who would bypass what he termed “inefficiencies” of representative government.

Wilson’s racism wasn’t the matter of a few unfortunate remarks here or there. It was a core part of his political identity, as indicated both by his anti-black policies as president and by his writings before taking office. It is completely accurate to describe him as a racist and white supremacist and condemn him accordingly.

That’s a pretty bold start.

And the following changes he made all should look familiar to anyone studying Nazi Germany:

Life under President Wilson, as one might expect from the above three points, was described in his day by chilling critiques:

He allegedly did not find it very important to intervene to stop mass deaths of Americans.

Instead he flexed his political muscle to push legislation through that made interracial marriage a felony crime among other awful actions.

President Wilson made it a requirement to include a photograph with any application for a federal position, to facilitate the exclusion of blacks from government jobs. Wilson pushed for segregation of federal workers, systematically demoted black civil servants, and claimed nothing could be done to improve the situation of blacks in the country. He refused to meet with black leaders, to appear at black conferences on race issues, or to publicly denounce lynching.

Priorities.

Even the National Interest refers to him as the worst President in history

Prices shot up into double digits, and then came a potent economic recession that lasted three years. He accepted the suppression of civil liberties by his notorious attorney general, A. Mitchell Palmer. His government nationalized many private industries, including the telegraph, telephone and railroad industries, along with the distribution of coal. Race riots erupted in numerous cities that claimed nearly 150 lives in two years.

Palmer was notorious because of arrests, convictions, incarcerations, and immigrant deportations, all without hearings or trials…some of the worst violations of civil rights and freedom of speech until Trump repeated them.

And that number of 150 is actually an unfairly low estimate, given how mass graves are being unearthed now from those “riots” (white mobs killing black Americans).

1919 was the devastating Red Summer such that by 1921 the Tulsa Massacre (white supremacists fire bombing an entire black neighborhood and building a KKK meeting hall on the ruins) was how the WWI black veterans were viciously attacked under Wilson’s “Second Empire”.

Many Black veterans were mistreated, and in some cases, attacked while in uniform. Lynchings increased from 64 in 1918 to 83 in 1919. Membership in the revived Ku Klux Klan, reborn after D.W. Griffith’s 1915 film The Birth of a Nation [screened in the White House, using President Wilson’s words and promoted under President Wilson’s name], skyrocketed into the millions by the early 1920s.

I don’t think we can so neatly tie all the Nazi plans for disinformation and violent centralization of power to Wilson’s administration alone, however.

Goebbels points out at least two other Americans he was heavily influenced by…

  • Bernays who published a 1928 propaganda guide, related to his work in the WWI U.S. Committee on Public Information (CPI)
  • Ford’s anti-Semitic disinformation and hate publications

The key to this story then really becomes Americans just prior to 1934, where the ends of the spectrum collide (Wilson’s racist legacy thins as America finds itself in conflict with him/Germany in a whole new way).

Hitler created a Ministry for Popular Enlightenment and Propaganda in March 1933. This was their version of Wilson’s CPI, where Bernays worked on messaging such as an official government “white knight” portrayal of American forces.

“Official U.S. War Film, released by Committee on Public Information, George Creel, Chairman” released in 1918

In case the “Knights Templar” and Crusader imagery here isn’t obvious enough, here’s the 1915 “Birth of a Nation” film poster that restarted the KKK.

We find the same propaganda today in Russian white supremacist “morale” patch stores frequented by hate group militias.

Source: Russian extreme-right militant patches store

And here’s an even more extreme American version, marketed as a “Tactical Ops” morale booster.

I guess this just shows how even Bernays still ties directly back to Wilson, while also to today’s Nazis. Oh well.

Roosevelt in 1934 established an FCC (the opposite model to Wilson/Nazi centralization) to help neutralize any further Nazi military intelligence operations (e.g. tamp down pro-Hitler “America First” cells). Roosevelt was acutely aware after an insane 1933 “Business Plot” to replace US gov with Nazism.

More to the point, experts in America had warned Roosevelt to keep WWI people like Wilson’s Bernays out of the WWII information warfare efforts. This is how far America had diverged under Roosevelt, as the Nazis were doing the exact opposite by bringing the teachings from Wilson’s Bernays into full force.

A book called “The Unseen Power: Public Relations: A History” gives us a recount:

Justice Felix Frankfurter, in a letter to President Franklin D. Roosevelt, described Bernays and Ivy Lee as “professional poisoners of the public mind, exploiters of the foolishness, fanaticism and self-interest.” A sociologist, E. T. Hiller, opined that “such widespread efforts to manipulate public opinion constitute a financial burden, a perversion of intellectual candor, and a menace to political sanity.”

How about Henry Ford then?

If you read Goebbels carefully you’ll find that he says he wasn’t so antisemitic until after reading Henry Ford’s publications on the matter.

The 1921 November 21 Congressional Record tells, not just about his antisemitism, but a sad tale of corrupt conspiracy/links to Wilson’s administration:

What were the relations between Mr. Henry Ford and President Woodrow Wilson? Mr. President, as my friend from Alabama would say, this is a serious question. Did not Henry Ford give $30,000 to Wilson’s campaign fund during the last month of the struggle in 1916, and do so at the personal request of Mr. Tumulty? It is so stated in this paper published by Henry Ford’s ex-partner, and it was published in September, and now we are nearly at December, and nobody has denied it. Will anybody now deny it? It is a pretty good time to make a denial.
[…nobody denies it…]
Did that liberal gift have anything to do with keeping Henry Ford’s son out of the Army when so many hundreds of thousands of other men’s sons were in the Army, thousands of them fighting, suffering, dying in Flanders and in France, while Edsel Ford was continuing to make tin Lizzies to run against golden chariots?
[…]
Mr. President, what else did Henry Ford get out of Wilson’s honest and patriotic administration? It was reported he got $14,000,000 for the construction of Eagle boats which were either useless or not constructed; and when that fact was brought home to Henry Ford he said he was going to return the money to Uncle Sam. I was anxious to have a front seat and see Henry do that, but he never has done it.
[…]
The Ford Motor Co., according to the War Department, received from Wilson’s administration $249,000 for tools which were never delivered. I suppose Henry has them yet. He also has the money, unless he spent it on this election.
The Ford Motor Co., for tractors: Number delivered, none. Amount paid, $1,299,000. Where are those tractors? They might be converted into golden chariots, for all I know.
The Ford Motor Co., for spare parts: Number delivered, none. Amount paid, $5,517,000. that leaves out the Eagle boats.

Welp. Looks like Henry Ford also was quite the Wilson man, soaking up loads of war money and delivering nothing as a form of forcing neutrality by gaming the supply chain.

For an interesting angle on this, German military intelligence also during this time was setting up shell companies that took American taxpayer money for supplies and delivered nothing (as a means of laundering money to support Germany, but also preventing American goods from reaching Britain).

In that sense, Wilson (and Ford) not only were laying a blueprint for Nazi Germany, they were perhaps in 1919 intentionally setting a very specific stage to create the antisemitic corrupt state they had tried to force on America.

America in fact drifted away from the early precepts of Nazism (not easily, as Roosevelt in 1933 had a pitched battle to win) while Germany drifted towards it…

In 1938 (the year of Kristallnacht, a Nazi attack that shook even pro-Nazi men like Hearst into joining team America against fascism) Henry Ford accepted Nazi Germany’s Grand Cross of the German Eagle as an award for his anti-Americanism.

A year later Ford Werke was eagerly (pun not intended) delivering materials to the Nazi war machine. This even continued after America declared war on Germany, and Ford resisted Allied requests for increased production to help defeat Hitler.

American autoworkers and their children in 1941 protest Ford’s relationship with Hitler. Source: Wayne State

It does make one think that had Wilson lived longer he may have, like Ford, seen Nazi Germany being what he had envisioned for America. While both men claimed to be anti-war, the record shows they were pro-tyranny and anti-American, wielding outsized influence in killing Americans.

Today still seems strange to write these things out loud, given how some Americans don’t admit yet how horrible Wilson was to Americans. Yet, it’s a fact that Nazi Germany was a result of Wilson’s foreign as well as domestic policies in more ways than we usually talk about.

Bastiat Economics and Microsoft’s Broken Windows

1907 the “Asiatic Exclusion League” chanting “Keep Canada White” demolished downtown Vancouver and stormed City Hall, foreshadowing 1938 Kristallnacht in Germany. Source: Vancouver is Awesome

Microsoft is now out to prove that Bastiat’s 1850 broken window fallacy (Ce qu’on voit et ce qu’on ne voit pas) is actually a great way to make money! (In other words, profit from waging expensively self-destructive cyber wars.)

What do I mean by profit from broken windows?

In a real-life example, scientist and environmental activist David Suzuki has often claimed that a corporation polluting a river adds to a country’s GDP. If the river has become polluted, an expensive program will be required to clean it up. Residents may choose to buy more expensive bottled water rather than cheaper tap water.

Suzuki points to this new economic activity, which will raise GDP, and claim that the GDP has risen overall in the community, although the quality of life has decreased.

Suzuki, however, forgot to take into account all the decreases in GDP that will be caused by the water pollution precisely because the economic losers are more difficult to identify than the economic winners. We don’t know what the government or the taxpayers would have done with the money had they not needed to clean up the river. We know from the Broken Window Fallacy that there will be an overall decline in GDP, not a rise.

That’s right. An 1850 economic theory predicted attempts by Microsoft to fraudulently make money with broken WINDOWS.

In the early 1990s Bill Gates infamously told his lead engineers and architects he would leave security out of the first release of Windows NT 3.5 (and I remember it well!) because safety slowed down their release schedules.

In the late 1990s Bill Gates also infamously told the SCO (Santa Cruz Operations) security teams (and I again remember well, hearing it directly from them!) that he had no interest in adding security to Windows after the fact because it wouldn’t make him a billion dollars.

Microsoft was willfully pumping out known defective windows expected to break.

This was confessed in 2001 with incredibly tone deaf articles like “Gates pushed change in security culture at Microsoft“.

Yeah he pushed NO SECURITY long and hard because he demanded broken Windows would bring him higher margins.

Speaking of long and hard, when I was in college my economics professor described to his students the Gates family way of thinking in terms of Soviet corruption (and this is allegedly a true story, as he was an expert in Soviet apocryphal economics):

When window production success was measured on tonnage generated, the windows came out so hard/thick none would fit in any buildings. So when window production success was shifted to measure square meters generated, the windows came out so long/thin none ever made to to the buildings without breaking.

Since the inputs didn’t change, and corruption allowed the factory operators to be lauded based on simplistic metrics, they gamed the system for selfish profit and screwed everyone else.

What was Microsoft Windows really measured on? It wasn’t security (preventing breaches), that’s for sure, and so decades of broken Windows have flowed and flowed and flowed into buildings around the world (especially America) being breached over and over and over again.

The SolarWinds disaster is like a ridiculously obvious return to Soviet-era economic lessons (if not 1850s early industrialization) for very basic supply-chain safety.

Microsoft (MSFT) is officially a cybersecurity giant. For the first time on Tuesday, Microsoft disclosed revenue from its various security offerings as part of its quarterly earnings — $10 billion over the last 12 months.

That amounts to a 40% year-over-year jump in the growing security business, making up roughly 7% of the company’s total revenue for the previous year.

“We waited in some sense [until] this milestone to show the depth, the breadth, the span of what we are doing,” Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella told Yahoo Finance… [following] Microsoft’s involvement in uncovering the breadth of the massive SolarWinds cyber attack in December, which hit private companies like cybersecurity firm FireEye (FEYE) and government agencies including the Treasury, Commerce, and State Departments, as well as the National Nuclear Security Administration and the Department of Homeland Security.

It’s very sad and so very unfortunate how Microsoft pushed out Windows that break and now is so shamelessly pleased to announce it’s making all its money repairing them. Why aren’t the Window repairs paid directly out of Gates’ fortunes?

In reality the cost of repairing Windows is dragging the economy down, while Gates gets richer.

Deploying broken Windows in the first place is a shameless tax on companies, which all would be far better off buying safe systems and then spending “fix tax” money elsewhere because it’s not needed (broken window fallacy as Bastiat warned us so long ago).

Related: a Harvard thesis in the mid-1990s (same time Gates was pushing out broken windows) argued apartheid can be very profitable (for fascists who stand to profit from those forced to live in fear with broken windows)

Kobach wrote about a white police state as good for business. He seemed to think beating down non-white populations (those seeking equal rights with white police) was how to push wealth into white hands just as a matter of “peace keeping”.

Now go back to the start of this post and tell me if you can see the “where do you want to go today” slogan (perhaps a longer version of “get out”) in that image from 1907 rioting white supremacists in Canada, breaking all the windows…

The Future-Future of Aircraft Carriers

The impressively huge Aircraft Carrier was a decisive platform in past wars and still gets a lot of airtime (pun not intended).

…when word of a crisis breaks out in Washington, it’s no accident that the first question that comes to everyone’s lips is: ‘where’s the nearest carrier?’

However, I can’t help but think about it in terms of a commoditization line over history.

What I mean to say is that there is a line that goes from the 1960s drone war being conducted on a mainframe in a few high-security buildings, all the way to warfare today being done using mobile phones in everyone’s pocket.

Take the core concept of the “carrier”. In today’s commodity technology terms I believe you get an autonomous sea box of tiny drones ready to swarm.

Source: Louisiana-based shipbuilder Metal Shark, selected to develop and implement the Long Range Unmanned Surface Vessel (LRUSV) System for the United States Marine Corps

One of the lessons of the 1980 failed operation Eagle Claw, for example, was they came up one single aircraft short of a complete mission.

Imagine telling that story instead where the numbers of aircraft launched from sea are no hurdle at all — opposite problem really, as you have surplus of highly operational units.

The sea launch platform already was pioneered a while ago by submarines launching drones out of their missile tubes. And the Navy many years ago was manually launching swarms of 50 drones. Surely by now they’ve combined these two advances into tubes at sea having a magazine attached.

Now flatten the carrier to waterline (e.g. into a Low Visibility Craft or LVC) to remove its target profile, and with a towline attach a submarine filled with sensors and tubes of hundreds or thousands or drones.

It would look like a fatter version of the 2016 Wave Glider submersible by Liquid Robotics.

Obviously this means surface vessels could easily reload by picking up another tow-line submersible, bringing resupply buoys (forward docking stations) into the picture on “long line” deployments.

Also I can’t help but mention this is very similar to what was being designed in the late 1800s and even demonstrated by Tesla himself, so we’re on a very late cycle of adoption (postponed by WWI emphasis on maintaining control over petroleum distribution).

The drones could launch undersea or on surface. Either way it’s a far more modern take on an old solution, for an even older problem in warfare.

This Day in History 1968: Vietnam Tet Offensive and Nixon’s Treason

U.S. Embassy in Saigon, January 1968. Source: Consortium News

On the day of Tết (Vietnamese New Year) I encourage the reader to think about a 1968 Viet Cong breach of the US Embassy and how it relates to a violent 2021 Capitol Hill insurrection:

En route to the American Embassy, the sappers were spotted driving without lights by a South Vietnamese civilian policeman. This member of the South Vietnamese National Police force, referred to as the white mice, chose to avoid problems and stepped back into the shadows as the truck and taxi passed by. The sappers had similar good fortune confronting the embassy’s first line of defense. After turning onto Thong Nhut Boulevard, they encountered four police officers, but the policemen fled without firing a shot.

This day in 1968 had a profound impact on American sentiment and consequences of the Vietnam War, due to reporting like this.

It abruptly became abundantly clear to Americans sitting at home that things were not going well for their government.

In other words sentiment shifted to ending US operations and talk about a withdrawal. We need to remember how a breach of the US Embassy had an outsized role in that shift.

The policemen did not stop the insurrectionists.

The US government building was breached.

Now hold those two thoughts.

Historians have since revealed also in 1968 (given the shifting sentiment during a Presidential campaign year) the GOP intentionally destroyed chances of peace, killing tens of thousands of Americans needlessly, just to get themselves into office:

…the Paris Peace talks, intended to put an end to the 13-year-long Vietnam War, failed because an aide working for then-Presidential candidate Richard Nixon convinced the South Vietnamese to walk away from the dealings.

The GOP Presidential candidate blew up peace talks of the US intentionally to make more Americans suffer and in pain elect him president on a false promise he would fix the mess he created (a lie quickly revealed as he instead expanded the war and increased deaths 10s of thousands more).

Here’s a more detailed account:

…Chennault — the China-born widow of World War II hero Gen. Claire Chennault of the famed Flying Tigers and a major Nixon fund-raiser — passed word to South Vietnam President Nguyen Van Thieu that if he boycotted planned peace talks in Paris, he could count on the support of a President Nixon. The Nixon campaign feared that Thieu’s presence would result in a deal that would end the war and swing the election to Humphrey. President Lyndon Johnson had ordered a halt in the bombing of Hanoi, also raising those hopes. But when Thieu indeed stayed away, the talks collapsed and Nixon was elected by 0.7 percent of the vote.

It gets even worse:

Nixon, in getting away with the Chennault caper, may have convinced himself he could do so again in Watergate. “If only we had known,” Mr. Hughes wrote. “Nixon wasn’t a rogue with a redemptive streak of patriotism. He played politics with peace to win the 1968 election. He did the same to win re-election in 1972 at the cost of thousands of American lives.” The tragedies that marked 1968 were horrible enough, without evidence that the winner of its presidential election did so by engaging in an illegal and despicable scheme to sabotage a sitting president’s efforts to end the Vietnam War.

Nixon was breaking the law, not to mention acting obviously immorally.

President Johnson himself privately called Nixon treasonous yet never publicly dropped this word because he underestimated the GOP threat to democracy.

After Johnson privately deemed Nixon’s actions as treasonous, an extraordinary call occurred between Johnson and Nixon, in which Nixon did enough to satisfy the President’s concerns to prevent Johnson from going public about the Chennault actions. 
Johnson had hoped that, to the extent possible, Vietnam would not be an issue in the fall campaign, and that the three candidates (Nixon, Humphrey, and George Wallace) would not interfere with his attempts to achieve a peace settlement before he left office.

Nixon was predictably turning the GOP into exactly what Truman in 1952 publicly blasted Eisenhower for allowing (with Nixon as VP candidate) — the same kind of party behavior (fascism) that the US had just fought WWII to remove from power.

The Republican candidate [Eisenhower] for the Presidency cannot escape responsibility for his endorsements. He has had an attack of moral blindness, for today, he is willing to accept the very practices that identified the so-called ‘master-race’ although he took a leading part in liberating Europe from their domination. I do not withdraw a word of that statement. […] …Senator Nixon [candidate for Vice President] and most Republicans, voted to override any veto of the McCarran bill, which is recognized everywhere as discriminatory.

Eisenhower was too soft on Nixon. LBJ was too soft on Nixon.

Nixon let tens of thousands of Americans die and delayed their safety so that he could take control of government.

And just for reference, Ronald Reagan would repeat this strategy for the GOP in 1980 when he delayed the safety of hostages in Iran in order to take control of government.

I am not trying here to minimize the impact of the 1968 military “Tet Offensive” (or all the warnings that it was coming) as hugely impactful to American sentiment and strategy in the Vietnam War.

Here’s a fine example of what that narrative looks like from the Army War College:

In contrast to the Viet Cong’s previous strategies of raiding, the Viet Cong occupied Huế and captured thousands of civilians and prisoners of war. Bullington was serving as a Foreign Service Officer at the time, and found himself in Hue in unusual circumstances. In this podcast, Bullington tells both his personal story (a love story in the midst of a war) and about the broader implications of the battle. While historians still debate the impact of the Tet Offensive and the Battle of Hue on the conduct of the American War in Vietnam, this story reminds us of the personal narratives and consequences that are also central to war.

Here’s another first-person narrative: “…the longer we stayed in Vietnam the more Viet Cong there were because we created them, we produced them…”

I am trying to draw attention to the fact that a US Embassy breach, and its reporting, should not be lost on anyone looking for insights from history.

If only more Americans could have understood how their personal narratives and consequences were being shaped by the domestic variant of fascism after 1948 — anti-democratic forces infiltrating and taking control of the GOP… now it’s just history.

Or is it?

Last I heard today’s GOP still are playing some of these games. Not to mention police didn’t stop the insurrectionists attacking an American government building on January 6, 2021…

53 years after a January violent offensive overran US government facilities, and a GOP ruthlessly and intentionally lied to undermine democracy, current news basically has us still talking about the same things.

Even more detail here: