9/11: The Roots of Paranoia

[Ignacio Upton]

Article | posted December 8, 2006 (December 25, 2006 issue)
9/11: The Roots of Paranoia

Christopher Hayes

According to a July poll conducted by Scripps News Service, one-third of Americans think the government either carried out the 9/11 attacks or intentionally allowed them to happen in order to provide a pretext for war in the Middle East. This is at once alarming and unsurprising. Alarming, because if tens of millions of Americans really believe their government was complicit in the murder of 3,000 of their fellow citizens, they seem remarkably sanguine about this fact. By and large, life continues as before, even though tens of millions of people apparently believe they are being governed by mass murderers. Unsurprising, because the government these Americans suspect of complicity in 9/11 has acquired a justified reputation for deception: weapons of mass destruction, secret prisons, illegal wiretapping. What else are they hiding?

This pattern of deception has not only fed diffuse public cynicism but has provided an opening for alternate theories of 9/11 to flourish. As these theories--propounded by the so-called 9/11 Truth Movement--seep toward the edges of the mainstream, they have raised the specter of the return (if it ever left) of what Richard Hofstadter famously described as "the paranoid style in American politics." But the real danger posed by the Truth Movement isn't paranoia. Rather, the danger is that it will discredit and deform the salutary skepticism Americans increasingly show toward their leaders.

If the official story is wrong, then what did happen? As you might expect, there's quite a bit of dissension on this point. Like any movement, the Truth Movement is beset by internecine fights between different factions: those who subscribe to what are termed LIHOP theories (that the government "let it happen on purpose") and the more radical MIHOP ("made it happen on purpose") contingent. Even within these groups, there are divisions: Some believe the WTC was detonated with explosives after the planes hit and some don't even think there were any planes.

To the extent that there is a unified theory of the nature of the conspiracy, it is based, in part, on the precedent of the Reichstag fire in Germany in the 1930s. The idea is that just as the Nazis staged a fire in the Reichstag in order to frighten the populace and consolidate power, the Bush Administration, military contractors, oil barons and the CIA staged 9/11 so as to provide cause and latitude to pursue its imperial ambitions unfettered by dissent and criticism. But the example of the Reichstag fire itself is instructive. While during and after the war many observers, including officials of the US government, suspected the fire was a Nazi plot, the consensus among historians is that it was, in fact, the product of a lone zealous anarchist. That fact changes little about the Nazi regime, or its use of the fire for its own ends. It's true the Nazis were the chief beneficiaries of the fire, but that doesn't mean they started it, and the same goes for the Bush Administration and 9/11.

The Reichstag example also holds a lesson for those who would dismiss the very notion of a conspiracy as necessarily absurd. It was perfectly reasonable to suspect the Nazis of setting the fire, so long as the evidence suggested that might have been the case. The problem isn't with conspiracy theories as such; the problem is continuing to assert the existence of a conspiracy even after the evidence shows it to be virtually impossible.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20061225/hayes

[Taxloss]

1. I have my own theories about the superabundance of theories.

It's a largely American phenonemon, of course, and plenty has already been written on the American fondness for imagining the existence of a shadow government or plot, be it the Masons, the Illuminati, the Jews, or any of their modern analogues, Bilderberg, CFR, Tilaterals, Skull and Bones, blah. Not solely American, but largely American. Perhaps it's the darker flipside of the American sense of Manifest National Destiny. This somehow creates a sense of forces at play on a grand scale, but their nature and purpose is somewhat obscured. That notion then curdles into conspiracy theories.

I think a big factor is the absence of a cathartic closure of the events of 9/11. There has been no trial, nor will there be one - the hijackers are dead, the masterminds are either dead or will never be caught (or even identified, perhaps). I think this was the same with the JFK assassination - the killing of Oswald has left a vast gap in our understanding of the event, and into that gap conspiracy theories prosper.

There's certainly a dash of auto-Occidentalism at play. But, again, this might be a curdled form of American exceptionalism - disbelief that outside forces could possibly have been able to do that on American soil. And there's a parallel there with the Pearl Harbour conspiracy, which may be rooted in disbelief that a foreign power could plan and execute such an attack without the USA's foreknowledge.

Or of course I'm wrong, all the conspiracy theories are true and the rest of us are pawns of the reptiloids or whatever. It's possible.

[mhatrw]

6. Have you ever heard of the Muslim world? Or Latin America?

The only thing that's largely an American phenomenon is American exceptionalism.

[greyl]

7. The Muslim world?

Can you point that out on a map for us, please?

[mhatrw]

8. Oh, and the fact that Americans don't know any geography. n/t

[greyl]

9. Question:

Would you like me to believe it's hopeless to attempt communicating with you?

[mhatrw]

13. Good question.

If there is any hope, it is in the proles.

[Taxloss]

16. Clearly I should have been more specific.

And you might want to join the dots with my post in the thread on Pakistani public opinion to understand this more clearly.

"Conspiracy theories" are of course a global phenonemon, although their popularity does show considerable regonal variations. However, there are two aspects of the American genus that make it distinctive.

1. Conspiracy as industry - the selling of conspiracy theories is big business in the USA. Publishers in particular make a lot of money out of it. Perhaps this is simply a result of American prosperity and late-stage capitalism on steroids.

2. More importantly, American conspiracy theories tend to be inward-looking. Conspiracy theories in the Muslim World and elsewhere tend to be outward-looking, detecting the hand of foreign infidels everywhere. In the USA it is the domestic government, not foreign powers, that is viewed with boundless suspicion.

[mhatrw]

19. They suspect us, Europeans suspect, Canadians suspect us, Latin Americans

suspect and we suspect us.

Might there just be something to all these suspicions?

[Taxloss]

20. There IS something to all those suspicions.

America is the #1 world power by a long chalk, with unparalleled ability to project its influence across the globe. That alone is enough to make the rest of the planet suspicious of its motives and goals. When you couple that with the fact that America's interests are so often at odds with global interests, and America's fondness for egregious interference in the politics of other countries, it's not at all surprising that the world is so suspicious of Uncle Sam. American politicians tend not to see this - they have constructed for themselves a very odd fantasy that they inhabit. That applies to Democrats as well as Republians, but to a far lesser degree. Democraic delusions over foreign policy can be charitably ascribed to limited perspectives and wishful thinking. Republicans are guilty of near-total delusion and overweening arrogance.

[John Q. Citizen]

22. Publishing is an industry, whether on 9/11 theories, garden tips, celebrity

stories, etc. This isn't news, nor is it specific to any region where there is a publishing industry.

As to your second hypothesis, follow the money (and the power.) The people in Oaxaca right now realize their own unelected government is conspiring to oppress them. They lay the blame on their own oligarchy. Is their oligarchy supported by foreign oligarchies? You bet. And the people know that as well.

Places where the government in power enjoys popular support because of popular political and economic programs don't suspect their own governments of working counter to their interests, for obvious reasons. Also, in the US, the most widely accepted conspiracy theory right now holds that foreigners, specifically Islamic foreigners, are out to get us. Hence, the war on terror.

So I don't see how your arguments hold water.


edited to add- after posting I saw your reply on the thread above, and yes, I agree with that aspect of your argument, which is part of my argument in this post.

[KJF]

2. Read the whole article

Snippets from the second half:

Of course, the commission report was something of a whitewash--Bush would only be interviewed in the presence of Dick Cheney, the commission was denied access to other key witnesses and just this year we learned of a meeting convened by George Tenet the summer before the attacks to warn Condoleezza Rice about Al Qaeda's plotting, a meeting that was nowhere mentioned in the report.

...

So it's hard to blame people for thinking we're not getting the whole story. For six years, the government has prevaricated and the press has largely failed to point out this simple truth. Critics like The New Yorker's Nicholas Lemann might lament the resurgence of the "paranoid style," but the seeds of paranoia have taken root partly because of the complete lack of appropriate skepticism by the establishment press, a complementary impulse to the paranoid style that might be called the credulous style. In the credulous style all political actors are acting with good intentions and in good faith. Mistakes are made, but never because of ulterior motives or undue influence from the various locii of corporate power. When people in power advocate strenuously for a position it is because they believe in it. When their advocacy leads to policies that create misery, it is due not to any evil intentions or greed or corruption, but rather simple human error. Ahmad Chalabi summed up this worldview perfectly. Faced with the utter absence of the WMD he and his cohorts had long touted in Iraq, he replied, "We are heroes in error."

...time and again the press has reacted to official pronouncements about threats with a near total absence of skepticism.

I'm filing this under "bright but clueless".

[Beam Me Up]

3. "Virtually impossible?"

I'll tell you what is impossible and it isn't "virtually". It is impossible for a 110 story building to come down at the same rate of speed as it would fall through thin air. THAT isn't merely unlikely or even highly unlikely. That is IMPOSSIBLE in the exact sense of the word. The fact that IT HAPPENED THREE TIMES means the official explanation can not possibly be correct.

Ever notice how these writers always comment on the MESSENGER but never on the real meat of the message?

Edited typo.

[Bolo Boffin]

5. It didn't happen three times.

It didn't happen once.

You are right to have questions when you get information about buildings falling through themselves at freefall speeds. But your questions should be directed at the people claiming such outlandish things.

Nowhere in the "official story" will you ever find a claim for buildings falling through themselves at freefall speeds.

[mhatrw]

4. Yes, the evidence that 19 Arabs did 9/11 by themselves is EXACTLY

as persuasive as the evidence that the Reichstag was "the product of a lone zealous anarchist."

How desperate that even the Third Reich's actions are getting whitewashed to keep us from questioning the Fourth Reich!

From the article:

To the extent that there is a unified theory of the nature of the conspiracy, it is based, in part, on the precedent of the Reichstag fire in Germany in the 1930s. The idea is that just as the Nazis staged a fire in the Reichstag in order to frighten the populace and consolidate power, the Bush Administration, military contractors, oil barons and the CIA staged 9/11 so as to provide cause and latitude to pursue its imperial ambitions unfettered by dissent and criticism. But the example of the Reichstag fire itself is instructive. While during and after the war many observers, including officials of the US government, suspected the fire was a Nazi plot, the consensus among historians is that it was, in fact, the product of a lone zealous anarchist. That fact changes little about the Nazi regime, or its use of the fire for its own ends. It's true the Nazis were the chief beneficiaries of the fire, but that doesn't mean they started it, and the same goes for the Bush Administration and 9/11.

The comparison is perfectly apt, as the author suggests. If you believe the Nazis had nothing to do with setting the Reichstag fire, far be it from me to try to convince you anything bad about our current US "leadership."

[Taxloss]

17. As the article says, it's the present consensus among historians

That Lubbe was the arsonist. And that's historians worldwide, not just in the United States. And that's "consensus", not simply majority view. Are they ALL desperate to "whitewash the Fourth Reich"? Because most of the really good work on the Third Reich is, for the first time, coming out of Germany itself. What basis do you have for believing that they set the fire, other than the fact that they benefited from it? (In fact, even the benefits they experienced are overstated. The dismantling of German democracy and institution of a police state was the platform the Nazis had been elected on, not a hidden agenda.)

[John Q. Citizen]

21. Do you have any links to support the contention of an historical consesus?

I don't know either way, and am interested.

The author of the article linked in the OP cites Popular Machanics as an authority in relation to the WTC collapses, although Popular Machanics cites the pancake theory, now not generally considered consesus opinion.

So I'm wondering what consesus opinion by whom the author is citing in relation to the lone nut arsonist theory?

Thanks

[reorg]

24. he won't because it's not true

There is some sort of consensus that van der Lubbe was involved. The Nazis, of course, attempted to blame a communist conspiracy but were never able to prove anything. That the Nazis had "helped" spread the fire had widely been suspected and was the general consensus until the early sixties, when a German intelligence officer claimed to have resolved the issue, based on the original police reports, in favor of a lone arsonist theory. This conclusion was supported by Hans Mommsen, who later became an eminent scholar of contemporary history in Germany and always remained convinced of this theory. Other scholars did not agree with this assessment (e.g. Golo Mann).

In the introduction to the latest study on the topic (2004), based on documents found in the archives of the former GDR, Iring Fetscher (professor emeritus of policital science, Frankfurt, Germany) states that the idea of a single culprit is no longer tenable.

Good summary (in German) can be found here:

http://www.vdw-ev.de/publikationen/schriftenreihe.html#reichstagsbrand

[John Q. Citizen]

25. Thanks for the info. I'm continually amazed at how gullible some people are

because they read something and then automatically assume that it's true.

[reorg]

28. Some people also have an amazing understanding of the term "consensus"

They read an opinion of a professor - and therefore it must be "consensus"?

But - look for instance who is quoted in the book of the British professor Richard J Evans, "The Coming of the Third Reich". Note 58 on page 519 cites:

Walther Hofer and Alexander Bahar: Der Reichstagsbrand (1992, 1972, 1978);
Alexander Bahar and Alfred Kugel: Der Reichstagsbrand - Neue Aktenfunde entlarven die Täter (1995);
Jürgen Schmädeke et. al.: Der Reichstagsbrand in neuem Licht (1999).

http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/1594200041/ref=sib_books_ref/102-5641870-2337746?ie=UTF8&keywords=Walther%20Hofer&v=search-inside#

These are but a few of those who vehemently argued (and still do) against the lone arsonist hypothesis of the amateur historian, the German intelligence officer Tobias, who brought it up when it was politically convenient, in a time of restoration in the FRG.

Martin Moll, a historian in Graz, describes:

... The debates over actors, instigators, and profiteers that practically started in the night of the fire and have not yet subsided concentrate on two topic areas. ... whether van der Lubbe acted alone ...(and) what significance the event had in the process of the Nazi takeover.

This discourse fills entire libraries by now ... It is amazing that professional circles and public opinion appeared to be in unison for a long time - yet with abrupt and extreme shifts from one extreme to another!

... The thesis of the amateur historian, Fritz Tobias ... was supported in professional circles and caused a paradigm shift, though not completely. An "International Committee Luxemburg" around the Swiss historian Walther Hofer resisted ...

Nothing in this controversy was normal ... Fact based arguments took the backseat to polemics and personal defamation, including mutual allegations of forgery. Numerous court proceedings were initiated, to cause the opposing side to retract or refrain from making claims ...

Tobias supporter Hans Mommsen ... successfully prevented a manuscript critical of Tobias' thesis from publication ... Mommsen's methods to achieve this were recently labelled by the IfZ as "under scientific viewpoints totally unacceptable" ...

http://www.eforum-zeitgeschichte.at/moll03.html (German)


This manuscript had been commissioned by Mommsen's employer, the Institut für Zeitgeschichte - IfZ, in Munich, but its outcome was not what had been expected. A faksimile of a memo exists, wherein Mommsen stated that a publication of the manuscript - whether by the institute or independently - was not desirable, for "general policital reasons" ("aus allgemeinpolitischen Gründen"), and because the institute's reputation would suffer ...

As mentioned in my previous post, documents from archives in the former GDR which had been unavailable to Western scientists enabled new studies during the nineties. The documents contain the complete record of the police investigation and of the court proceedings, showing conclusively that many claims of Tobias and Mommsen were false and misleading. Hersch Fischler published a list of errors of Hans Mommsen in 1992 (German):

http://www.zlb.de/projekte/kulturbox-archiv/brand/fischler-fehler.htm


Iring Fetscher, came to the assessment that the lone-nut theory can no longer be maintained. As to his significance as a scholar, well, his name produces 228 hits at Amazon, and here is a short bibliography (German):

http://www.iring-fetscher.de/Bibliog.htm

Other historians and commentators have chimed in, the current director of the IfZ in Munich, Horst Müller, said the question who did it has to be asked again ("die Frage ist wieder offen"), and that van der Lubbe probably didn't do it alone.

http://www.heise.de/tp/r4/artikel/22/22127/1.html (German)


Comprehensive documentation of the debate (German):

http://www.zlb.de/projekte/kulturbox-archiv/brand/index.html

[Taxloss]

32. See post #31.

Also, I've read Evans' books, but I was also lectured by him and others. That's "inadmissable" in this context though, as I can't provide links to photographs of me in the Seeley building. So.

#31 quotes directly from Evans' second volume; he must have rejected Hofer and Bahar's conclusions. They are not cited in volume two, at any rate.

As for Fetscher, don't you think that he might be placing too much store in what contemporary Communists thought about the fire? An understandable bias, but they're not very reliable sources.

[reorg]

40. since we are down from consensus to "not a minority" view

I don't really care whether or not your professor rejects certain conclusions.

As to your question regarding Iring Fetscher

"don't you think that he might be placing too much store in what contemporary Communists thought about the fire?"

I think it betrays an equally lackadaisical attitude. You apparently know nothing about Fetscher but suspect that he buys into the Brownbook counterpropaganda, or what?

No sir, he certainly does not. Has always been an outspoken critic of "real socialism", was never a communist. Pretty much mainstream social democrat.

In the few remarks of his on the Reichstag fire debate I have read he refers to some diary entries (Harry Graf Kessler, Thomas Mann, Francois Poncet) which speak to contemporary suspicions by (liberal, in the traditional sense) conservatives. And he discusses what has been found out about the "consensus building" during the early sixties.

There does not seem to be much on the web on this in English, but you may try searches on "Paul Karl Schmidt" (aka Paul Carell), "Dr. Walter Zirpins". "Rudolph Diels" is also interesting.

[Taxloss]

26. Contrary to what reorg says, the lone arsonist theory is a consensus.

Which is not to say that some do not agree with it.

Professor Richard J Evans, possibly the greatest living British authority on the Third Reich, holds fast to the lone arsonist theory. His book The Third Reich in Power contains the Lone Arsonist assertion. He was the principal expert witness in the David Irving trial, and I cite him in particular because he lectured me when I was at university.

About Evans:

Since acting as principal expert witness in the David Irving libel trial before the High Court in London in 2000, his work has dealt with Holocaust denial and the clash of epistemologies when history enters the courtroom. He is currently writing a large-scale history of the Third Reich; volume one, covering the period to July 1933, was published in October 2003, volume two, dealing with the years 1933-39, is scheduled for publication in October 2005, and volume 3, covering the years 1933-45, in September 2007. He has been Editor of the Journal of Contemporary History since 1998 and a judge of the Wolfson Literary Award for History since 1993. Over the years, his work has won the Wolfson Literary Award for History, the William H. Welch Medal of the American Association for the History of Medicine, the Fraenkel Prize in Contemporary History, and the Hamburg Medaille für Kunst und Wissenschaft. He is a Fellow of the British Academy, the Royal Society of Literature and the Royal Historical Society, and an Honorary Fellow of Jesus College, Oxford, and Birkbeck College, London.

Source:

http://www.hist.cam.ac.uk/academic_staff/further_details/evans-r.html

More:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_J._Evans

Not evidence of a consensus, I'm not sure how I would go about demonstrating a consensus one way or the other, but I'm inclined to take Evans as my authority on this one.

[John Q. Citizen]

27. The history channel apparently believes that the question is open.

http://sf.indymedia.org/uploads/reichstagfire.ram


Here is a review of the book by a German historian and a physicist/psychologists who wrote their history using the new material discussed on the History channel.

I would say that from my research on google, that the issue doesn't yet have a consensus. But when one considers the timing (a week before elections Hitler wanted)the motive, the means and the access, it seems very reasonable to assume it was made to happen by the Nazis.


The Reichstag Fire, 68 years on
Alexander Bahar, Wilfried Kugel:
Der Reichstagbrand - Wie Geschichte gemacht wird
(The Reichstag Fire - How History is Created), edition q, Berlin 2001, ISBN 3-86124-523-2,
864 pages, price: 68.00 DM

A guest review by Wilhelm Klein
5 July 2001
http://194.3.120.243/humanities//igcsehist/coursework/bahar_krugel.htm

Who were the arsonists?

To this very day, there is hardly any event in German history that has been debated as heatedly as the issue of who really set the Reichstag on fire.

In years of meticulous research, the two authors of the book, historian Alexander Bahar and physicist and psychologist Wilfried Kugel, carried out the first comprehensive evaluation of the 50,000 pages of original court, state attorney office and secret police (Gestapo) files that had been locked away in Moscow and East Berlin until 1990. The result is a remarkable and explosive, more than 800-page document that for the first time provides almost complete circumstantial evidence that the Nazis prepared and set the Reichstag fire themselves.

The authors have thus succeeded in disproving a hypothesis that even today is still fairly widespread: that the Dutchman Marinus van der Lubbe was the sole perpetrator. They "base their evidence largely on original documents that are stored in public archives, but have not been evaluated up to now... The book contradicts in many ways all of the research reports that have been published so far on the Reichstag fire, based on what the authors say is the first thorough evaluation of all presently available relevant sources... In summary, the authors have succeeded after years of work in presenting a comprehensive chain of circumstantial evidence—albeit one that will only have a conclusive character for those readers who are prepared to take on the intellectual challenge presented by the often highly complex and convoluted aspects of this case of political crime." (2)

Bahar and Kugel describe the two contradictory hypotheses as to who was actually responsible for setting the fire as follows:

"As incontestable as it is that the Nazis benefited from the Reichstag fire and made skillful use of it in establishing their dictatorship, opinion remains divided as to who actually committed the deed. The communists accused by the Nazi authorities at the Reichstag Fire Trial in Leipzig were already ruled out in 1933 for obvious reasons: quite apart from the lack of evidence, the suicidal and thus nonsensical nature of such a deed was self-evident, despite Nazi propaganda to the contrary. So did Marinus van der Lubbe, the 75% vision-impaired Dutch left-wing radical communist arrested in the burning Reichstag set the fire on his own? Or were the culprits to be found among the Nazis?" (3)

As early as the summer of 1933, the Brown Book on the Reichstag Fire and Hitler’s Terror was published in Switzerland under the editorship of Willi Münzenberg. In this book, German emigrés attempted to provide proof that the Nazis had committed the crime in a secret operation run by Nazi leader Hermann Göring. And even before the Reichstag Fire Trial in Leipzig, the "Legal Commission of the International Investigation Committee" came to the conclusion that the Nazis had set the fire themselves. Up to 1949, this was the prevailing opinion of all serious contemporaries outside of Germany. "Everyone abroad was and remains convinced that the Nazis set fire to the Reichstag." (4)

In Germany, however, the legend of Marinus van der Lubbe as the sole perpetrator was created after 1945 by the first head of the Gestapo, Rudolf Diels, and his former staff. Diels, who was in charge of the sweeping arrests carried out on the night of the fire, had every reason to exonerate the Nazi rulers after World War II, since he was deeply involved in the Reichstag fire himself. As the authors explain:

"six hours before the Reichstag fire, Rudolf Diels, head of the ... Political Police since February 23, 1933 and subsequently head of the Secret State Police Office (Gestapo), wrote the following police radio telegram which was sent to all police stations in Prussia at about 6:00 p.m.: ‘Communists reportedly plan to carry out systematic raids on police squads and members of nationalist associations with the aim of disarming them.’ ... ‘Suitable countermeasures are to be taken immediately, and where necessary communist functionaries placed under protective custody.’" (5)

"The arrests carried out the next night had thus already been initiated by Rudolf Diels, the Chief of the Political Police, on the afternoon of February 27." (6)

The authors prove that it would have been impossible for Marinus van der Luppe to set on fire a building as large as the Reichstag on his own, by reconstructing in minute detail the course of the fire on the basis of countless testimony documents and investigation and court files (particularly in Chapters 2 and 4).

Their conclusion is that "the ‘culprit’ van der Lubbe had even less time to carry out his alleged act of arson than has hitherto been assumed, namely only 12 to 13 minutes... The view often expressed in historical literature that the Reichstag arson had taken Göring, Goebbels and Hitler ‘by surprise’ must now presumably be regarded once and for all as a myth." (7)

In Chapters 5 to 7, the authors document the proceedings at the so-called Reichstag Fire Trial, which began on September 21, 1933 in Leipzig, and then present the circumstantial evidence for the guilt of the Nazis. The exact evaluation of all of the fire expert reports leads to one conclusion: " All of the fire experts agreed that the fire in the Reichstag assembly hall had to have been set by several culprits. Van der Lubbe’s self-incrimination was thus proved to be a lie."

One would have to believe that van der Lubbe set the fire and then just stayed around to get caught? How rational was that? All accounts point out that Himmler immediately blamed the Communists as he exited his car upon arriving at the fire, before the identity of the van der Lubbe had been established, even by the accounts of those who claim that van der lubbe acted alone.

Did Hitler just get lucky? Yeah, right. By the way, your former prof seems like a pretty smart guy and all, but nowhere in the links you provided does it say that he subscribes to the lone arsonist theory. Do you have any links to his views on the fire itself? Perhaps he's changed his views in light of the new evidence?

[Taxloss]

31. Looks like I was wrong, then.

About the consensus, that is; it's clearly not a consensus. The study you cite is new to me.

Which isn't to say that it wasn't a lone arsonist, or tht the lone arsonist view isn't still the majority view. I don't know; but it's certainly not a minority view.

Anyway, from the Prologue of Evans' The Third Reich in Power (p.11, 2005; I am working from the softback 2006 edition):

On 28 February chance came to the Nazis' aid: a lone Dutch anarcho-syndicalist, Marinus van der Lubbe, burned down the Reichstag building in protest against the injustices of unemployment.

The Prologue is a summary of the book; Evans goes into more detail about the fire on pp. 67-68. I suppose I could take digital photographs of these pages if you remain unconvinced.

I'd certainly like to know what evidence there is for the assertion that the fire didn't take leading Nazis by surprise. Goebbels laughed off the first report as a joke (according to Ralf Georg Reuth's 1990 biography of him, in 1993 hardback English translation - I'm working from what I have on my shelves). The coterie at the top instantly blamed the Communists because they feared/believed that the fire was the opening of a Communist coup or uprising.

My understanding of the fire was that the main piece of evidence that the Nazis set it was the scale of the blaze - not possible for Lubbe to have set it on his own. That's a good piece of evidence, based on police and fire reports. But there's no evidence of a Nazi plot other than that, in terms of post-1945 admissions, diaries, memos, anything like that. Nothing that retrospectively refers to the fire as an inside job. If you compare that to a relatively well-documented Nazi false flag operation like the Gleiwitz operation, it's odd.

If the Nazis did do it, we don't know HOW they did it. Also, belief that they did do it require belief in a fairly striking coincidence, that Lubbe just happens to decide to burn the Reichstag on the night that the Nazis plan to burn it. Lubbe was mentally ill, by the way, not the most rational guy, so his hanging around to get caught isn't a rational act, but he still did it.

[reorg]

36. Looks like you were wrong then, and are now

"My understanding of the fire was that the main piece of evidence that the Nazis set it was the scale of the blaze - not possible for Lubbe to have set it on his own. That's a good piece of evidence, based on police and fire reports. But there's no evidence of a Nazi plot other than that, in terms of post-1945 admissions, diaries, memos, anything like that."

From a book review in WSWS (these lefties are often well-informed about goings-on and publications in Germany)

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/jul2001/reic-j05.shtml

>> ... Among the documentary evidence the authors base this verdict on is the testimony of SA member Adolf Rall (who was later murdered by the SA and the Gestapo). The emigré newspaper Pariser Tageblatt reported on December 24, 1933: “he (Rall) stated he was a member of the SA’s “Sturm 17” unit. Before the Reichstag fire broke out, he had been in the subterranean passageway that connects the Reichstag assembly building to the building in which the government apartment of the Reich President is located. Rall said that he had personally witnessed various members of his SA unit bringing the explosive liquids into the building.” (10)

Hans Bernd Gisevius, who had worked as a junior lawyer for the political police from August to December 1933, made the following testimony at the Nuremberg War Crimes Trial in 1946: “It was Goebbels who first came up with the idea of setting fire to the Reichstag. Goebbels discussed this with the leader of the Berlin SA brigade, Karl Ernst, and made detailed suggestions on how to go about carrying out the arson. A certain tincture known to every pyrotechnician was selected. You spray it onto an object and then it ignites after a certain time, after hours or minutes. In order to get into the Reichstag building, they needed the passageway that leads from the palace of the Reichstag President to the Reichstag. A unit of ten reliable SA men was put together, and now Göring was informed of all the details of the plan, so that he coincidentally was not out holding an election speech on the night of the fire, but was still at his desk in the Ministry of the Interior at such a late hour... The intention right from the start was to put the blame for this crime on the Communists, and those ten SA men who were to carry out the crime were instructed accordingly.” (11)

(...)

Almost all of the SA men involved in the deed (with the exception of Hans Georg Gewehr) and many accessories to the crime were later murdered by the Nazis, above during the so-called “Röhm putsch” on June 30, 1934. <<

10) A. Bahar and W. Kugel: Der Reichtagsbrand, edition q, Berlin 2001, p. 533
11) ibid., p. 543

[John Q. Citizen]

39. Lubbe was mentally ill, and nobody claims he wasn't at the scene.

However there is lots of evidence that the Nazis used Lubbe as a patsy in order to blame their act on the Communists. As the guy in the History Channel piece stated, Lubbe imediatly confessed to to the fire and also to many other crimes he couldn't have been involved with. Also the Nazis claimed themselves that Lubbe had help, though they tried to pin that help on some other Communists who were exonerated at trial.

So the assertian that Lubbe didn't act alone fit the evidence that he couldn't possible have done it all by himself. But his accused co-conspiritors were innocent as that facts showed.



I'd certainly like to know what evidence there is for the assertion that the fire didn't take leading Nazis by surprise.

Here is some very good evidence that the Nazis weren't "surprised."

In Germany, however, the legend of Marinus van der Lubbe as the sole perpetrator was created after 1945 by the first head of the Gestapo, Rudolf Diels, and his former staff. Diels, who was in charge of the sweeping arrests carried out on the night of the fire, had every reason to exonerate the Nazi rulers after World War II, since he was deeply involved in the Reichstag fire himself. As the authors explain:

“six hours before the Reichstag fire, Rudolf Diels, head of the ... Political Police since February 23, 1933 and subsequently head of the Secret State Police Office (Gestapo), wrote the following police radio telegram which was sent to all police stations in Prussia at about 6:00 p.m.: ‘Communists reportedly plan to carry out systematic raids on police squads and members of nationalist associations with the aim of disarming them.’ ... ‘Suitable countermeasures are to be taken immediately, and where necessary communist functionaries placed under protective custody.’” (5)

“The arrests carried out the next night had thus already been initiated by Rudolf Diels, the Chief of the Political Police, on the afternoon of February 27.” (6)

So the arrests of the political opponents of Hitler in the election Hitler had succeeded in getting called for the following week were ordered before the fire. Doesn't is appear they were prepared for when the fire happened

My understanding of the fire was that the main piece of evidence that the Nazis set it was the scale of the blaze - not possible for Lubbe to have set it on his own. That's a good piece of evidence, based on police and fire reports. But there's no evidence of a Nazi plot other than that, in terms of post-1945 admissions, diaries, memos, anything like that. Nothing that retrospectively refers to the fire as an inside job. If you compare that to a relatively well-documented Nazi false flag operation like the Gleiwitz operation, it's odd.

Finally, the authors expose the Nazis as the only feasible culprits. Among the documentary evidence the authors base this verdict on is the testimony of SA member Adolf Rall (who was later murdered by the SA and the Gestapo). The emigré newspaper Pariser Tageblatt reported on December 24, 1933: “he (Rall) stated he was a member of the SA’s “Sturm 17” unit. Before the Reichstag fire broke out, he had been in the subterranean passageway that connects the Reichstag assembly building to the building in which the government apartment of the Reich President is located. Rall said that he had personally witnessed various members of his SA unit bringing the explosive liquids into the building.” (10)

Hans Bernd Gisevius, who had worked as a junior lawyer for the political police from August to December 1933, made the following testimony at the Nuremberg War Crimes Trial in 1946: “It was Goebbels who first came up with the idea of setting fire to the Reichstag. Goebbels discussed this with the leader of the Berlin SA brigade, Karl Ernst, and made detailed suggestions on how to go about carrying out the arson. A certain tincture known to every pyrotechnician was selected. You spray it onto an object and then it ignites after a certain time, after hours or minutes. In order to get into the Reichstag building, they needed the passageway that leads from the palace of the Reichstag President to the Reichstag. A unit of ten reliable SA men was put together, and now Göring was informed of all the details of the plan, so that he coincidentally was not out holding an election speech on the night of the fire, but was still at his desk in the Ministry of the Interior at such a late hour... The intention right from the start was to put the blame for this crime on the Communists, and those ten SA men who were to carry out the crime were instructed accordingly.” (11)

Based on this testimony and a wealth of other circumstantial evidence, the course of this act of arson can be reconstructed as follows:

“On February 27, 1933, at about 8:00 p.m. a commando group of at least 3, and at most 10 SA men led by Hans Georg Gewehr entered the basement of the palace of the Reichstag President. The group took the incendiary substances deposited there, and used the subterranean passageway to go from the Reichstag President’s palace to the Reichstag building, where they prepared the assembly hall in particular with a self-igniting liquid they probably mixed in the hall. After a certain latency period, the liquid set off the fire in the assembly hall. The group made their getaway through the subterranean passageway and the basement of the Reichstag President’s palace (and possibly also through the adjacent basement leading to the machinery and government employees’ building) to the public street ‘Reichstagsufer.’ Göring entered the burning Reichstag building at 9:21 p.m. at the latest, presumably in order to provide a cover for the commando group’s retreat.

“Van der Lubbe was brought to the Reichstag by the SA at exactly 9:00 p.m. and let into the building by them. The sound of breaking glass which was noticed by witnesses and which was allegedly due to van der Lubbe breaking window panes to get into the building was probably only intended to attract the attention of the public. The Dutchman was sacrificed as the only available witness.” (12)

Almost all of the SA men involved in the deed (with the exception of Hans Georg Gewehr) and many accessories to the crime were later murdered by the Nazis, above during the so-called “Röhm putsch” on June 30, 1934.

And there is this evidence on the Reichstag Fire given at the Nuremberg War Crimes Trial in 1946.

"At a luncheon on the birthday of Hitler in 1942 the conversation turned to the topic of the Reichstag building and its artistic value. I heard with my own ears when Goering interrupted the conversation and shouted: "The only one who really knows about the Reichstag is I, because I set it on fire!" With that he slapped his thigh with the flat of his hand" - Franz Halder (German General
http://194.3.120.243/humanities/igcsehist/coursework/reichstag/sourcework/source_m.htm
http://194.3.120.243/humanities/igcsehist/coursework/reichstag/who.htm#Halder

"I had nothing to do with it. I deny this absolutely. I can tell you in all honesty, that the Reichstag fire proved very inconvenient to us. After the fire I had to use the Kroll Opera House as the new Reichstag and the opera seemed to me much more important than the Reichstag. I must repeat that no pretext was needed for taking measures against the Communists. I already had a number of perfectly good reasons in the forms of murders, etc." - Herman Goering

Do you believe that the fire was "inconvenient" for the Nazis? That it played no roll in their taking power?


"From the night of the fire to this day, I have been convinced that the Reichstag was set on fire neither by the communists nor Herman Goering, but that the fire was the piece de resistance of Dr. Goebbels's election campaign, and that it was started by an handful of Storm Troopers all of whom were shot afterwards by SS commandoes in the vicinity of Berlin. There was talk of ten men, and of the Gestapo investigating the crime. This was reported to me on the one hand by Ernst, the Chief of the Berlin Stormtroopers, who was filled with poisonous hatred of Goebbels, and also by the police chief Dr. Diels who gave me exact details about the crime and the identification of the 10 victims."

Martin Sommerfeldt was the Minister of the Interior's press officer at the time of the Reichstag Fire. He wrote this account in 1956.


So, the Nazis prepared for the arrests of thier opposition right before the fire. The Co-conspirators charged by the Nazis were found innocent by the evidence and the evidence proves Lubbe couldn't have done it alone. The Nazis had access from the building where Goering had his office through the tunnels, the motive, and the means to set the fire. The story of "one lone nut" only surfaced after the war and was fabricated by a Nazi, Diels, involved in the plot, and this fire allowed Hilter and the Nazis to take over Germany. And the rest is history, as they say.

You can believe the Nazis or you can look at the evidence and come up with the only rational conclusion, the same conclusion that the whole world arrived at in the days following the fire. One must ask, who benefitted? It wasn't the communists. It wasn't the "lone nut" who didn't have the means to carry it out by himself. It seems pretty obvious to me what happened. Synthetic Terrorism so that Hitler could achieve his goals. The fire marked the end of the Republic and the beginning of Nazi totalitaianism. Or does a report that Goering was "surprised" exonerate them from guilt for the fire?

[Taxloss]

41. Well, you're the one believing Goering.

Not me. Of course the fire benefited the Nazis - but cui bono isn't proof, you know. As with 9/11.

Here's Goebbels, writing in his diary on 9 April 1941:

On the question of the Reichstag fire he (Hitler) is betting on Torgler as the instigator. Think that out of the question; he is far too bourgeouis.

Goebbels really was a genius of propaganda if, eight years after the fire and at the high point of the war, in his private diary he carefully invents a conversation with Hitler about who among the Communists they suspect set the fire in order to confuse future historians.

Goering may have acted alone, of course. Hanfstaengel thought so, but based solely on his supicions, not proof.

On edit: the Nazis would have blamed the Communists whoever set the fire, because it suited them and they were in position to do so, and the Communists tried for it were certainly innocent (Lubbe aside).

[John Q. Citizen]

42. How do you mean "I'm believeing Goering?" I think the evidence in it's

totality points to Nazi involvement. Who specifically we will probaly never know. Cui bono isn't proof, but it is usually a good place to start looking.

As to Goebbels diary, he might have done it and not told Hitler. That conversation in his diary might be true, and Goebbels could still be the perp.

And there is proof that the Nazis were preparing to start arresting communists prior to the fire, and then did, post fire. It gave them an excuse that they lacked before.

At any rate, I think it can be pretty well established that their isn't a consesus that Lubbe acted alone, in fact all the fire inspectors and the police investigators said he couldn't have done it alone. Their is no evidence that he acted with other communists at all, but there is eyewitness testimony (and some from Nazi officials) that say the Nazis were involved, and a good deal of circumstantial evidence as well.

This doesn't much prop up the arguments of the author from the piece in the Nation, any more than his relying on the pancake theory to prove a 9/11 inside job is impossible does either.

[mhatrw]

46. So one guy's beliefs make a consensus?

Or is that two? Or three, if we include the consensus decider?

[mhatrw]

30. What does the evidence say?

I don't believe there is a consensus of historians worldwide who believe that Lubbe set fire to the Reichstag all by himself despite the German state's best efforts to stop him.

Could you supply some evidence for this dubious contention of yours?

[greyl]

10. Thanks for posting, great article.

So far, I don't see any supported complaints about it, only complaints.

[John Q. Citizen]

11. Just the same story written about why 9/11 couldn't be an inside job all over again.

I notice none of these guys mention or give any indication of having read Hopsicker, for example. They just all write essentially the same piece over and over again.

They all mention the no planers, loose change, and Popular Mechanics, yet like our own OCTers never dare to tread into the money trail, the hijackers and their associates, or the fact that the 9/11 commission report is rife with inconsistencies, inaccuracies, omissions and outright lies.

Apparently, poor Chris Hayes is so unfamiliar with the subject he's writing on that he doesn't realize that the pancake theory has been officially discarded, and still sites the outdated (and wrong) Popular Mechanics article which relies on the pancake theory, now officially abandoned by NIST.

So Mr. Hayes can state all he likes that it's been proven that a 9/11 inside job is virtually impossible. Just don't expect him to be so naive as to actually show how or why is been proven virtually impossible.

[Bryan Sacks]

12. The 'credulous' style

Hayes is quite right about it. He's also too credulous himself, but at least he demonstrates some reflexivity in his critique.

What Hayes won't do, and what other establishment writers won't yet do, is admit the obvious: the is no basis for the credulousness exhibited by the mainstream press and the establishment left. That is because there is a symbiosis, not a disconnect, between US covert actions/agents and their supposed enemies.

The conclusion to a recent essay by Nafeez Amhed makes the point starkly and incontrovertably (once you've sifted the evidence, that is):

At every major strategic point in the world, we find that US and Western power is symbiotically melded – through financial, military and intelligence connections – with al-Qaeda; and further that al-Qaeda has in certain places been explicitly used as a military-intelligence asset by Western powers, particularly the United States and United Kingdom. This documentation indicates that international terrorism in the form of al-Qaeda is not merely an enemy to be fought, but rather an unruly asset to be, when possible, controlled and manipulated in the pursuit of quite specific strategic and economic interests. Worse still, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that certain elements of the policy-making establishment are perfectly cognizant that as a direct result of such policies, national security is being fundamentally and continuously undermined with repeatedly fatal consequences. Yet the same brand of policies persists. Without dwelling unnecessarily on the possible theoretical ramifications of this phenomenon, it is sufficient for me to note that these facts fundamentally challenge the entire paradigm of the ‘War on Terror’ as articulated and legitimized by the official narrative.

Hayes and his ilk remain incredulous about the degree of this symbiosis. So do LARED and Boloboffin and greyl and The Wraith and the others who are conspicuously silent on the threads in this forum which offer clear, unambiguous evidence of this symbiosis.

This is the big story. Not 'no planes'. Not controlled demolition or whatever else. That is window dressing. Unless you confront the fact of the melding of US intelligence with its supposed enemies, you are talking about inessentials.

This melding allows the 'incredulous' to very plausibly suggest that 9/11 was an inside job. If their theories drift off into the improbable or ridiculous, it does not change the basic plausibility of the inside job thesis. Hayes essentially admits this, though decorum and his own establishment allegiances do not permit him to put it this way.

If you do not challenge the 'symbiosis' thesis, you are not challenging the baseline plausibility of the 'inside job' thesis.

on edit: fixed html markers

[mhatrw]

14. Exactly. You articulated that very well.

The naturally "conspiratorial" among us have naturally gravitated toward 9/11 and brought their "conspirtorial" (read: borderline paranoid) biases along with them.

So what? The leaps of faith of some of these conspiracy mongers are exploited by the OCT crowd in order to paint everyone who doubts the 9/11's manufactured consent as a dangerous, unbalanced nutcase.

However, the simple fact remains that al Qaeda is at least primarily, if not completely, a Western military/intelligence construct in every sense of the word.

[LARED]

18. This is the big story

Really, you think so? I don't. Western intelligence entities and terrorist organizations damn well better have a symbiotic relationship. What do you think the CIA and NSA does for a living? Wait around for threats to act? No they go out and gather intelligence about organization threating the US creating a symbiotic relationship.

The difference between us is the way we view this relationship. I view it as a unpleasant reality to protect Western countries and those on the other side view it in some NWO conspiracy.

[John Q. Citizen]

23. Your naivety of the symbiotic relationship between US

LEO/intel organizations and the so-called "terrorist organizations" is startling.

You apparently see the world in black and white terms, ie, the good guys versus the bad guys.

This utopian ideal completely ignores the history of LEO/intel symbiotic relationships with targets, whether it be the war on drugs, the war on terror, the war on Communism (aka the cold war.)

Apparently to your way of thinking, the Iran Contra Conspiracy was a necessary evil undertaken to protect our country. Just an "unpleasant reality" to use your term.

To my way of thinking, it was a criminal conspiracy designed by rogue government forces for the subversion of the will of the people of the US, undertaken to protect elite American interests in Latin America. It was predicated on terrorism against a civilian population, the creation and spread of the crack epidemic in the US, and the entrenchment of the Mullahs in Iran.

The fact that, in the long run, none of the goals of this symbiotic relationship between LEO/US intel organizations and the target resulted in anything good for the people of the US is lost on you. However, in the short term, it did result in benefits for the elites.

You may recall that the phrase "New World Order" was a creation of the elites, no matter how hard you try to associate the term (and the concept it describes) to those who are essentially powerless, though repugnant.

The difference between us is how we view elites and authoritarianism. I view them as generally not to be trusted, and you view them as exceptionally trustworthy.

[wildbilln864]

29. kicking because....

that's one smackdown that deserves exposure! Way ta go John Q.!

[LARED]

38. You are easily impressed (n/t)

[rman]

15. In spite of clear signs of a coverup,

as the article does acknowledge.

[dailykoff]

33. "By and large, life continues as before"?!

So the Nation's "sponsors" aren't allowing it to discuss the November 7 elections either? Or the fact that Rummy and Bolton have already been kicked to the curb?

That magazine has sucked for some time.

[salvorhardin]

34. The Nation is entirely reader supported

Its' money stream comes from its' subscribers and associate members. You will not find ads from ConAgra, DuPont or Boeing in its' pages. And while I don't agree with everything The Nation prints you would be hard pressed to find a more independent publication. It's fine to disagree with a magazine because they don't reflect your worldview, just be honest about why you disagree rather than making stupid claims based solely on your distorted perception rather than reality.

[dailykoff]

43. Read the post. I said "sponsors," not corporate sponsors.

And I definitely didn't say anything about ConAgra. :crazy:

[salvorhardin]

45. So you're saying...

That The Nation's sponsors are not allowing it to discuss certain topics? But by saying this, you are really saying that The Nation's readers are not allowing it to discuss certain topics because that is how The Nation is sponsored. Is this really what you want to say? If not, please be more specific. Who exactly do you mean by "sponsors"? Otherwise I can only assume you are factually challenged once again.

[John Q. Citizen]

37. Yes, he makes some strange assertions without ever really examining what he is saying;

"By and large, life continues as before, even though tens of millions of people apparently believe they are being governed by mass murderers.

Well by and large, life went on as before, even after it was clearly revealed that our government lied us into a war for oil and foriegn military bases by falsifying data about alleged WMD, and alleged Iraqi ties to those the government alleges were responsible for 9/11. This caused the the cynical and needless deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, not to mention that thousands of American soldiers have died as a result.

The author knows this and he also knows there aren't daily mass demonstrations, strikes, civil disobedience, even though it is quite clear to well over a hundred million people we are still governed by mass murderers. So what's his point?

[dailykoff]

44. It's very odd.

Lately the conspiracy debunking articles all sound like they were written about four years ago.

[HamdenRice]

35. LOL!! Holy fu**ing shit! Does this guy have no sense of irony whatsoever?!?!?!

I'm actually laughing my ass off because of the last line of the Nation article. This is what Hayes wrote:

To avoid such a fate, the public must come to trust that the gatekeepers of public discourse share their skepticism about the agenda its government is pursuing. The antidote, ultimately, to the Truth Movement is a press that refuses to allow the government to continue to lie.

Doesn't he know that the slang for the Nation and its fellow travelers is "left gatekeepers"? Does he really think that in the age of the internet, the public craves "gatekeepers of public discourse" rather than (finally) real, open, unfettered political discourse???