To all who believe that concerns about Trump’s rapid actions — from his dismantling of the US government, following the Project 2025 playbook with the help of Elon Musk to his threats to annex Canada, Greenland, or the Panama Canal or his attempt to play a much greedier, more corrupt version of Chamberlain in a peace settlement forced upon Ukraine — are not to be taken seriously, here is a cautionary tale, in the form of an editorial from the February 2, 1933 issue of Der Israelit, a leading voice of German Jewry at the time (English translation below):
Die neue Lage
Der Israelit, Heft 5, 02.02.1933
Das Kabinett Hitler, das sich am Montag Mittag in Berlin etabliert hat, bedeutet eine schwere stimmungsmäßige Belastung der ganzen deutschen Judenheit, ja, darüber hinaus, aller der Kreise, die in der Ueberspitzung des nationalistischen Rassen-Fanatismus unserer Tage ein Hemmnis auf dem Wege menschlicher Besittung und weltgeschichtlichen Fortschritts erblicken.
Zwar sind wir keineswegs der Meinung, daß Herr Hitler und seine Freunde, einmal in den Besitz der lange erstrebten Macht gelangt, nun etwa nach dem Rezept des „Angriff“ oder des „Völkischen Beobachters“ vorgehn und kurzer Hand die deutschen Juden ihrer verfassungsmäßigen Rechte entkleiden, sie in ein Rassen-Ghetto sperren oder den Raub- und Mord-Instinkten des Pöbels preisgeben werden. Das können sie nicht nur nicht, weil ihre Macht ja durch eine ganze Reihe anderer Machtfaktoren vom Reichspräsidenten bis zu den Nachbarparteien, beschränkt ist, sondern sie wollen es sicherlich auch gar nicht; denn die ganze Atmosphäre auf der Höhe einer europäischen Weltmacht, die ja mitten im Konzert der Kulturvölker stehn und bleiben will, und dazu das Bewußtsein, in der Wilhelmstraße nun der Notwendigkeit des demagogischen Werbens um den dröhnenden Beifall turbulenter Volksversammlungen bis auf weiteres überhoben zu sein, ist der ethischen Besinnung auf das bessere Selbst günstiger als die bisherige Oppositionsstellung. Den Mitkämpfern von gestern, den Parteifreunden, vermag der neue preußische Innenminister durch Erneuerung des großen Beamtenkörpers in nationalsozialistischem Sinne viel realere Dienste zu leisten als durch offene Zugeständnisse an den brutalen Judenhaß.
Trotzdem wäre es sträflicher Optimismus, sich des Ernstes der Lage nicht bewußt zu sein. Je weniger die neuen Männer dem mit Hunger und Not verzweifelt ringenden deutschen Volk durch gesetzgeberische Wunder wirkliche Hilfe zu bringen vermögen, desto näher liet für sie der Wunsch, ut aliquid feci videatur doch wenigstens ein paar Absätze aus dem rassentheoretischen Programm der Partei in die politische Wirklichkeit umzusetzen, was ohne sensationelle und kompromittierende Judengesetze auf dem Wege des „trockenen Pogroms“, der systematischen Aussperrung und Aushungerung der Juden im wirtschaftlichen und kulturellen Leben leicht geschehen kann.
Inwieweit in einem nationalsozialistischen Beamtenkörper das alte preußische Beamtenpflichtgefühl über die so lange gepflegten antisemitischen Instinkte Herr werden und Schikanen und Rechtsverkürzungen gegenüber Juden ausschließen wird, in wieweit eine Polizei, die einen Nationalsozialisten als obersten Chef über sich weiß, in jedem Einzelfall zuverlässig und unparteiisch bleiben wird, wenn es sich um Juden (oder gar um sozialistische oder kommunistische Staatsbürger) handelt – das sind Fragen und Zweifel, über deren Berechtigung nur die Zukunft entscheiden kann.
Wie die Dinge liegen, scheint es uns noch das kleinere Uebel zu sein, daß durch Tolerierung der neuen Regierung von Seiten des Zentrums die parlamentarische Basis und Kontrolle – trotz eines befristeten Ermächtigungsgesetzes – wenigstens grundsätzlich aufrechterhalten bleibt (man denke zum Beispiel nur an die Gefahren, die sonst der שחיטה drohen), als wenn ein Mißtrauensvotum des Reichstags die Auflösung mit allen ins Uferlose sich erstreckenden Aspekten aus Diktatur und Staatsnotstands-Experimenten herbeiführt.
Or, in English:
The New Situation
Der Israelit, Issue 5, 02.02.1933
The Hitler cabinet, which established itself in Berlin on Monday afternoon, represents a severe emotional burden for all German Jewry, and beyond that, for all circles that see in the exaggeration of today’s nationalist racial fanaticism an obstacle on the path of human civilization and historical progress.
To be sure, we are by no means of the opinion that Mr. Hitler and his friends, having finally attained their long-sought power, will now proceed according to the recipe of the “Angriff” or the “Völkischer Beobachter” and summarily strip German Jews of their constitutional rights, confine them to a racial ghetto, or abandon them to the predatory and murderous instincts of the mob. They not only cannot do this because their power is limited by a whole series of other power factors from the Reich President to the neighboring parties, but they certainly do not want to do it either; for the whole atmosphere at the height of a European world power, which wants to and must remain in the concert of civilized nations, and in addition, the awareness of being relieved for the time being of the necessity of demagogic wooing for the thunderous applause of turbulent mass rallies in the Wilhelmstrasse, is more conducive to ethical reflection on one’s better self than the previous opposition position. The new Prussian Minister of the Interior can render much more real services to yesterday’s fellow combatants, the party friends, by renewing the large civil service corps in a National Socialist sense than by open concessions to brutal Jew-hatred.
Nevertheless, it would be criminal optimism not to be aware of the seriousness of the situation. The less the new men are able to bring real help to the German people desperately struggling with hunger and misery through legislative miracles, the closer lies for them the desire, ut aliquid feci videatur, to at least implement a few paragraphs from the party’s racial theoretical program into political reality, which can easily happen without sensational and compromising Jewish laws by way of the “dry pogrom,” the systematic exclusion and starvation of Jews in economic and cultural life.
To what extent the old Prussian sense of official duty will prevail over the long-nurtured anti-Semitic instincts in a National Socialist civil service corps and exclude harassment and curtailment of rights against Jews, to what extent a police force that knows it has a National Socialist as its supreme chief will remain reliable and impartial in every individual case when it comes to Jews (or even socialist or communist citizens) – these are questions and doubts whose justification only the future can decide.
As things stand, it seems to us to be the lesser evil that through the toleration of the new government by the Center Party, the parliamentary basis and control – despite a time-limited enabling act – at least in principle remains intact (one need only think, for example, of the dangers that would otherwise threaten שחיטה*, than if a vote of no confidence in the Reichstag were to bring about dissolution with all its boundless aspects of dictatorship and state of emergency experiments.
*shechita, ritual slaughter
We all know what actually happened in the twelve years that followed this change in government in Berlin.
We do not yet know what is going to happen with the Western alliance, or the United States, in the coming years. But there is zero reason for optimism.
Here we go again!
Geo-politically we are on a downswing. I’ve become convinced in recent years that we won’t recover until after the world falls hard enough that once more the survivors proclaim “Never again!”
Two leaders in this week’s Economist: (European edition):
“How Europe must respond as Trump and Putin smash the post-war order
The region has had its bleakest week since the fall of the Iron Curtain. The implications have yet to sink in
Leaders February 22nd 2025
The PAST week has been the bleakest in Europe since the fall of the Iron Curtain. Ukraine is being sold out, Russia is being rehabilitated and, under Donald Trump, America can no longer be counted on to come to Europe’s aid in wartime. The implications for Europe’s security are grave, but they have yet to sink in to the continent’s leaders and people. The old world needs a crash course on how to wield hard power in a lawless era, or it will fall victim to the new world disorder.
Speaking in Munich last week, America’s vice-president, J.D. Vance, offered a taste of how the home of fine wines, classical architecture and welfare cheques faces humiliation, when he ridiculed Europe as decadent and undemocratic. Its leaders have been excluded from peace talks between the White House and the Kremlin, which began officially in Riyadh on February 18th. However, the unfolding crisis goes far beyond insults and diplomatic niceties.
Mr Trump appears ready to walk away from Ukraine which he falsely blames for the war. Calling its president, Volodymyr Zelensky, a “dictator”, Mr Trump warned him that he had “better move fast or he is not going to have a country left”. America may try to impose an unstable ceasefire on Ukraine with only weak security guarantees that limit its right to re-arm.
That is bad enough, but Europe’s worst nightmare is bigger than Ukraine. Mr Trump intends to rehabilitate Russia’s president, Vladimir Putin, ditching a long-standing policy to isolate him. Without any obvious geopolitical benefit to America, he is angling to restore diplomatic relations. He may soon be feted at a glitzy summit. Offering up concessions in Riyadh, Marco Rubio, the secretary of state, gushed about co-operation and “historic economic and investment opportunities”. (Trump Tower Red Square?)
Mr Trump’s shakedown of Europe and pandering to Russia have cast doubt on America’s commitment to defend NATO come what may. One fear is that American forces could be cut, or pulled back to leave eastern Europe exposed. The problem is not that Uncle Sam’s priorities lie in Asia. The problem is that if Europe comes under Russian attack and seeks American help, Mr Trump’s first and deepest instinct will be to ask what is in it for him. He is due to meet Britain’s prime minister and the French president next week. But don’t take that as a signal that this is just clever talk from a dealmaker: Mr Trump’s readiness to trade everything away is precisely the problem. NATO’s deterrence rests on the certainty that if one member is attacked the rest will come to its aid. Doubt is corrosive; it leaves Europe dangerously exposed.
Let us spell out the reality Europe faces. It is an indebted, ageing continent that is barely growing and cannot defend itself or project hard power. Global rules on trade, borders, defence and technology are being ripped up. If Russia invades one of the Baltic states, or uses disinformation and sabotage to destabilise eastern Europe, what precisely will Europe do?
So far the answer is to curl up in a defensive crouch. After the MAGA onslaught, a group of European leaders hastily met in Paris on February 17th but managed only to advertise their differences. Three years after Russia’s invasion Europe has not raised military spending nearly enough. It is trapped in an obsolete worldview of multilateral treaties and shared values.
Europe’s urgent task is to relearn how to acquire and wield power; it must be prepared to confront adversaries and sometimes friends, including America, which will still be there after Mr Trump. Instead of cowering, it needs an objective appraisal of the threat. Russia is a war machine with a vast arsenal of nuclear weapons, but also a medium-size economy that is declining. Europe also needs an equally objective appraisal of its own strengths: although it is slow-growing, Europe is still an economic and trade giant with great reserves of talent and knowledge. It needs to use those resources to reinvigorate growth, rearm and assert itself.
What does that mean? In the short term Europe needs a single envoy to talk to Ukraine, Russia and America. It should tighten its embargo on Russia even if America loosens sanctions. Europe should unilaterally exploit the €210bn ($220bn) of Russian cash frozen in European banks. That would pay for Ukraine to fight on or rearm as American funds dwindle.
In the medium term a huge defence mobilisation is needed. If Europe cannot rely on America, it must have its own heavy-lift aircraft, logistics, surveillance: the lot. Talks must start on how Britain and France can use their nuclear weapons to shield the continent. All this will cost a fortune. Defence spending will need to rise to the 4-5% of gdp that was normal during the cold war. Higher defence outlays, particularly if some are spent on American weapons, may persuade Mr Trump to stay in NATO, but the assumption now must be that American support is not guaranteed.
Paying for this rearmament will take a fiscal revolution. The new target will require extra spending of upwards of €300bn a year. Some of this must come from issuing more common and individual debt. In order to bear that, Europe will have to cut welfare: Angela Merkel, Germany’s former chancellor, used to say that Europe accounted for 7% of the world’s population, 25% of its GDP but 50% of its social spending. To raise growth, Europe must press ahead with obvious but endlessly delayed reforms, from unifying capital markets to deregulation.
A new dream for an old continent
The nightmare that Mr Putin and now Mr Trump have conjured up may ultimately force Europe to change how it organises itself. Its pedantic obsession with process and groupings, including the euro zone, the EU and many others, slows decision-making, omits key actors like Britain and gives weight to countries such as Hungary, which want to sabotage European defence, or Spain that is hesitant to rearm.
All this sounds outlandish. NATO has been the world’s most successful alliance: its disappearance is hard to imagine. But the old things have passed away; all things have become new. Europe needs to face up to that before it is too late. ”
AND
“How far will he go? Donald Trump: the would-be king
America is fated to wage a titanic struggle over the power of the president
Leaders
February 22nd 2025
IN HIS FIRST whirlwind month in office, Donald Trump has made his base exultant and left his opponents reeling. With his blitzkrieg, Mr Trump is trying to turn the presidency into the dominant branch of government. The question is how far his campaign goes before he is checked—if he is checked—and where it will leave the republic.
That fight is over the fundamental character of America. The president says he is clearing out waste, fraud and abuse from the bureaucracy, but his opponents warn he is wrecking the federal government. He says he is bringing peace to the world and prosperity at home; they warn he is shattering the alliances that keep the West strong. He says he is making America great again; they warn he is frogmarching the country into a constitutional crisis, or even a Trumpian autocracy.
Mr Trump’s every act demonstrates his belief that power is vested in him personally, and affirms that he is bent on amassing more. Ignoring the legislature, he is governing by decree. He asserts that the president can withhold money allocated by Congress. The framers had expected that branch of government to be the most powerful but this would diminish it. Because some of Mr Trump’s 70 or so executive orders are, on the face of it, brazenly unconstitutional, he also appears to be seeking a trial of strength with the judiciary.
Everywhere you look, it is the same. Government departments are being thrown into confusion, partly to demonstrate Mr Trump’s personal authority over them. The Washington Post has reported that candidates for senior jobs in intelligence and law enforcement have been asked whether they endorse Mr Trump’s false claim that he won the election in 2020. Mr Trump has also swept away post-Watergate safeguards designed to keep the Department of Justice at arm’s length from politics. One of the department’s first acts has been to ask prosecutors to drop corruption charges against Eric Adams, the mayor of New York City—though only for as long as he does what Mr Trump demands.
In foreign affairs, too, Mr Trump chafes to be rid of the obligations he inherited. America is quitting multinational outfits, such as the World Health Organisation, partly because they impose burdens. He has used the threat of tariffs to gain influence over foreign governments—this also empowers him at home by creating supplicants seeking relief. As he breaks a taboo by embracing Russia, he looks as if he is treating his alliance with Europe as something to bargain away.
You hear that such maximalist presidential ambitions are unprecedented. In fact, Mr Trump is hardly the first to want to dominate the republic. Franklin Roosevelt signed over 3,700 executive orders. In forcing through the New Deal, he spent six months trying to pack the Supreme Court. Power has been ebbing from Congress to the White House for the past three decades. There is a long Republican tradition calling for the restoration of true democracy by taking back power from bureaucrats. America has always been wary of being tied down by UN-type institutions.
Moreover, Mr Trump is entitled to set new goals for the bureaucracy. He also has a duty to make it honest and efficient. Bill Clinton’s drive to streamline government cut over 420,000 federal jobs. As we argued last week, departments need shaking up—including the Pentagon, which is failing to prepare America for 21st-century warfare. And Mr Trump has every reason to seek peace in Europe and the Middle East, both to save lives and to free America to focus on its rivalry with China.
However, government is about means as well as ends, and here Mr Trump’s critics are right to be alarmed. Bureaucratic shock therapy will bring a lot of harm before it does any good. Subjecting public servants to purity and loyalty tests will politicise the technicalities of running a complex modern economy. Subordinating justice to presidential whim corrupts the rule of law. His peace plan for Gaza would force Palestinians into permanent exile, a denial of their most fundamental rights. In each case Mr Trump has displayed wanton cruelty. Unfortunately, that is also a way of acquiring power—because humiliation embodies the idea that might is right.
And that belief is where Mr Trump will hit trouble. Take the courts. Just now, the president is mostly getting his way. Yet in a federal system where states have rights, and most citizens and investors still believe in the rule of law, the courts are powerful, even if they move slowly. The Supreme Court may give Mr Trump some of what he wants, but surely not all. Characteristically, he has pledged to abide by legal rulings, and then quoted Napoleon, saying: “He who saves his Country does not violate any Law.”
Defiance of the Supreme Court would trigger a constitutional crisis and a second fight among officials, voters and financial markets over the future of the republic. New York is already seeing an inkling of this as federal prosecutors and New York officials resign in protest over the deal with Mr Adams.
Even without a constitutional crisis, reality will begin to bite. Whatever Mr Trump asserts, tariffs and budget deficits do in fact create inflation. The markets know that well, just as they know how businesses will suffer if the justice system becomes a vehicle for cronyism and retribution. America’s bureaucracy provides vital services; if it breaks, citizens will go without. Americans may dislike the idea of aid, but what will they feel if they see little children being made to suffer in their name? Perhaps the voters currently endorsing Mr Trump’s first month will not care about any of that. But do not bet on it.
In foreign policy Mr Trump is free to try to remake the world, and America may suffer a disastrous loss of influence to China and Russia before anyone can stop him. At home, by contrast, a fight is at hand and the president is still far from overturning America’s constitutional order. Mr Trump, being who he is, will contemplate any extreme. But in these tempestuous times Republicans should remember the virtue of restraint—out of self-interest as well as patriotism. Should a Democratic president win office, the powers Mr Trump seizes could be used against them. ■”
Those who do not remember history are doomed to repeat its mistakes. I’d add to that that “never again” happens only if Western values are preserved. This time around, that outcome is not assured, in which case “never again” will be a banned slogan, deemed counterrevolutionary by the Ministry of Truth…
So your view is that even after the bottoming-out of the current downturn (which I see lasting a decade or few) Trumpism will remain?
I don’t necessarily see nuclear armageddon, but the downturn – including widely-felt disruptions of climate change and some failing attempts to mitigate it – will, IMO, likely get to be at least as bad as WWII.
Hitler didn’t survive WWII, although I have to admit that his ideology is recovering; AfD in 2nd place this evening…(and Trump in 1st!)
My take is indeed that the “downturn” (lasting a decade or few) will be a catastrophic period for Western civilization just like WW2, and that furthermore, its survival is less assured than it was in 1933. The Armageddon may not be nuclear (though I would not exclude the possibility — not necessarily global thermonuclear war, but still the use of multiple nuclear weapons on multiple fronts) but it might be just as catastrophic. To be brutally honest, climate change worries me the least. Not because it isn’t happening but because its consequences are slow, long-term, contributing to instability (e.g., massive migration) but ultimately dwarfed by other calamities that will be sudden and far deadlier insofar as humans are concerned. (Nature, I don’t much worry about; Nature survived far, far worse than anthropogenic warming.) As an example illustrating my point, compare, say, the ecological disaster of the Aral sea against the “result” of the Gulag. The Aral sea is frightening, but insofar as the human consequences of the Soviet regime are concerned, the Gulag is far, far worse.