Recorded March 9, 2008
MP3: 30-Minute Segment
REALAUDIO NB: This RealAudio stream contains both FTR #627 and FTR #628 in sequence. Each is a 30 minute broadcast.
“Green” politics has become an important part of the political scene, assuming a pivotal position in the progressive community. This broadcast highlights Nazi and fascist infiltration and co-option of the Green Party and green politics in general. Unknown to many in the Green movement is the fact that the Nazi party under Hitler [NSDAP] had a “green wing,” that advocated policies not unlike those of the contemporary green movement. The Nazi greens, however, incorporated a chauvinistic “blood and soil” mysticism that saw ecological consciousness as a philosophical basis for war and genocide. Beginning with discussion of the theories and advocates of the “Green wing” of the NSDAP, the program highlights the doctrine of Walther Darre, one of the most important theoreticians and politicians of the Nazi party’s green wing and a man who enjoyed the support of Hitler deputy Rudolph Hess. The green wing of the Nazi party established a precedent—the German branch of the Green Party has, to an extent, recapitulated the green wing of the NSDAP. Note that the Green Party as a whole rejected attempts by “neo-Nazis” to infiltrate and turn the party. Nonetheless, the green dalliance with fascism has continued. Political arguments that are, in their fundamental, fascist continue to prove seductive to unwary green advocates. The program concludes with a look at the murder of Petra Kelly, leader of the German Greens, at the hands of her longtime companion, a former German general who fought with the Nazis in World War II.
Program Highlights Include: Discussion of Kelly murderer Gert Bastian’s postwar involvement in fascist politics; the key role in the formation of the Green Party played by August Haussleiter—a veteran of Hitler’s Beer Hall Putsch; Haussleiter’s postwar involvement with the worldwide SS underground.
1. Beginning with discussion of the theories and advocates of the “green wing” of the NSDAP—the Nazi party under Hitler—the program highlights the doctrine of Walther Darre, one of the most important theoreticians and politicians of the Nazi party’s green wing. Ecofascism highlights how the Nazi party’s green wing constituted an important part of the philosophical rationalization for genocide. This same philosophical outlook has proved appealing—to an extent—to elements of the contemporary pro-ecology milieu. As will be seen at greater length in FTR#629, green philosophy has afforded contemporary fascist and Nazi elements an opportunity to infiltrate, seduce and co-opt green elements to a fascist construct. “ . . . No aspect of the Nazi project can be properly understood without examining its implication in the holocaust. Here, too, ecological arguments played a crucially malevolent role. Not only did the ‘green wing’ refurbish the sanguine anti-Semitism of traditional reactionary ecology; it catalyzed a whole new outburst of lurid racist fantasies of organic inviolability and political revenge. The confluence of anti-humanist dogma with a fetishization of natural ‘purity’ provided not merely a rationale but an incentive for the Third Reich’s most heinous crimes. Its insidious appeal unleashed murderous energies previously untapped. Finally, the displacement of any social analysis of environmental destruction in favor of mystical ecology served as an integral component in the preparation of the final solution: ‘To explain the destruction of the countryside and environmental damage, without questioning the German people’s bond to nature, could only be done by not analyzing environmental damage in a societal context and by refusing to understand them as an expression of conflicting social interests. Had this been done, it would have led to criticism of National Socialism itself since that was not immune to such forces. One solution was to associate such environmental problems with the destructive influence of other races. National Socialism could then be seen to strive for the elimination of other races in order to allow the German people’s innate understanding and feeling of nature to assert itself, hence securing a harmonic life close to nature for the future.’ This is the true legacy of ecofascism in power: ‘genocide developed into a necessity under the cloak of environment protection.’. .”
(Ecofascism: Lessons from the German Experience; by Janet Biehl and Peter Staudenmaier; AK Press [SC] 1995; Copyright 1995 by Janet Biehl and Peter Staudenmaier; ISBN 1–873176-73–2; pp. 17–20.)
2. More about the philosophical question of green wing of the NSDAP: “ . . . To make this dismaying and discomforting analysis more palatable, it is tempting to draw precisely the wrong conclusion — namely, that even the most reprehensible political undertakings sometimes produce laudable results. But the real lesson here is just the opposite: Even the most laudable of causes can be perverted and instrumentalized in the service of criminal savagery. The ‘green wing’ of the NSDAP was not a group of innocents, confused and manipulated idealists, or reformers from within; they were conscious promoters and executors of a vile program explicitly dedicated to inhuman racist violence, massive political repression and worldwide military domination. Their ‘ecological’ involvements, far from offsetting these fundamental commitments, deepened and radicalized them. In the end, their configuration of environmental politics was directly and substantially responsible for organized mass murder. No aspect of the Nazi project can be properly understood without examining its implication in the holocaust. Here, too, ecological arguments played a crucially malevolent role. Not only did the ‘green wing’ refurbish the sanguine anti-Semitism of traditional reactionary ecology; it catalyzed a whole new outburst of lurid racist fantasies of organic inviolability and political revenge. The confluence of anti-humanist dogma with a fetishization of natural ‘purity’ provided not merely a rationale but an incentive for the Third Reich’s most heinous crimes. Its insidious appeal unleashed murderous energies previously untapped. . . .”
(Ibid.; pp. 24–25.)
3. The green wing of the Nazi party established a precedent—the German branch of the Green Party has, to an extent, recapitulated the green wing of the NSDAP. Note that the Green Party as a whole rejected attempts by “neo-Nazis” to infiltrate and turn the party. Nonetheless, the green dalliance with fascism has continued. Political arguments that are, in their fundamental, fascist continue to prove seductive to unwary green advocates. Note how ecofascist ideology concides with “volksgruppenrechte” or “going native” as Mr. Emory calls it. (This is discussed in, among other programs, FTR#627.) “ . . . As in France, such notions were compatible with the hatred of refugees, asylum seekers, and ethnic minorities. But this animosity was obscured somewhat by the German New Right’s strong endorsement of national liberation movements and ‘revolutionary struggles’ around the world, ranging from the Basques in Spain and the IRA in Northern Ireland to the peoples of the Eastern EU , the Ukraine, the Afghan mujahideen, and the Sandinistas of Nicaragua. In short, any mortal enemy of a superpower was deemed a de facto ally by various inchoate New Right formations that sprang up in West Germany during the early 1980s. This period also saw the emergence of the Greens, left-of-center peace-and-ecology party, as a mass-based opposition movement in West Germany. Galvanized by NATO’s decision to station a new generation of medium-range nuclear missiles in Europe, the Greens adopted a neutralist stance toward the East-West conflict. Their attempts to forge a third way beyond capitalism and Communism bore certain similarities to themes stressed by New Right intellectuals and neo-Nazi militants, who tried to outflank their left-wing contemporaries by enunciating radical positions on ecology, nuclear weapons, U.S. Imperialism, and ‘national liberation.’ Some right-wing extremists went so far as to call for ‘revolution from below’ in Germany modeled after Third World independence struggles. They often employed leftist-sounding rhetoric that appealed to the Greens’ supporters, who also obsessed over questions of personal and collective identity. Many Greens were receptive to arguments that German unification was an indispensable precondition to a durable peace in Europe. Such matters were debated in New Right publications that interspersed articles by left-wing authors and neo-fascistic ‘national revolutionaries.’ . . .”
(The Beast Reawakens; Martin A. Lee; Little Brown [HC]; Copyright 1997 by Martin A. Lee; ISBN 0–316-51959–6; pp. 216–217.)
4. Note that a veteran of the NSDAP and Hitler’s Beer Hall Putsch was a seminal member of the German Green Party. August Haussleiter was also active in postwar German fascist politics. Of particular significance for our purposes is Haussleiter’s participation in the Bruderschaft—a pro-SS contingent among German officers in the fledgling Bundeswehr—the army of the “new” Federal Republic of Germany. Ernst Remer was an SS officer who became a major leader of the postwar SS underground the ODESSA. “ . . . The first organization to call itself ‘the Greens in 1977 was led by August Haussleiter, a bullnecked, red-faced veteran of Hitler’s beer hail putsch, who had a long history of involvement in extreme right-wing causes after World War II. During the 1950s, August Haussleiter’s Deutsche Gemeinschaft (German Community) collaborated with the neo-Nazi Bruderschaft, which counted Otto Skorzeny among its key personnel. Shortly after the Socialist Reich Party was banned by the West German government, Haussleiter engaged in secret talks with Ernst Remer’s colleagues in an effort to preserve the political punch or the SRP faithful. The SRP-linked attorney Rudolf Aschenauer was an executive board member of the DeutscheGemeinschaft. By the late 1960s, however, Haussleiter had swung toward the Left in an effort to attract student radicals. His group, Action Community of Independent Germans, began to focus on ecology and antinuclear issues. Haussleiter subsequently became a father figure for the fledgling Greens, whose initial supporters included dissident conservatives as well as left-wing activists. In 1980, he was elected chairman of the Greens, but Haussleiter was forced to step down after a months because or his checkered past. . . .”
(Ibid.; p. 217.)
5a. The program concludes with a look at the 1992 murder of Petra Kelly—the leader of the German Green Party. She was ostensibly killed by her “significant other” Gert Bastian, whose corpse was also [allegedly] found at the crime scene. Note that Bastian was, according to some sources, a member of the Bruderschaft, as was August Haussleiter. Bastian fought with the Nazis in World War II, and continued to work with the German far right in the postwar period. Mr. Emory notes that, according to some sources, the German police never released the actual files on the murder. Mr. Emory also notes that Kelly’s murder took place as the German Greens were metamorphosing from an element for peace and détente into a philosophical and political rationalization for war. The prominence of the Greens on the German political landscape was a major reason why the Soviets and Mikhail Gorbachev gave the go-ahead for the re-unification of Germany. After German reunification, the Green Party became a force for war, as they began actively supporting the policy of “volksgruppenrechte” or “going native,” with regard to the former Yugoslavia. (This is discussed at greater length in FTR#627.) “ . . . He had an odd history. In World War II, he fought for the Nazis, failed in private business after the war, and went back into the military in 1956. He was a member of CSU — the far-right party — until 1963, when he began a long political transformation that by the 1980s landed him with the Greens. He later resigned, protesting that they were being too soft on communists by just focusing on U.S. missiles. . . .”
(“Who Killed Petra Kelly” by Mark Hertsgaard; Mother Jones; January/February/1993.)
5b. Again, Gert Bastian was apparently part of the Bruderschaft, along with Haussleiter.
. . . .After the war, Haussleiter continued his effots by joining the “Bruderschaft” or “brotherhood,” of former SS active within the German military and political worlds. His colleagues in this network included Gert Bastian, Otto Skorzeny (the rescuer of Mussolini) and Otto Ernst Remer (the turncoat responsible for crushing the German officers’ July 1044 plot to overthrow Hitler.) . . .
6. Two video productions are being generated by a couple of documentary filmmakers. One is a DVD of a three-lecture series called “The First Refuge of a Scoundrel: The Relationship Between Fascism and Religion.” In addition, there will soon be a documentary about Mr. Emory, titled “The Anti-Fascist.” For more about this project, visit TheAntiFascist.com.
Martin Borman, Nazi in Exile
[...] Green movement and fascism properly or nazism, provided by anti-fascist researcher Dave Emory click here, by authors Janet Biehl and Peter Staudenmaier, click here or by Peter Staudenmaier alone, [...]
[...] FTR #628 It’s Not Easy Being Green: Nazi infiltration and Co-option of the Green Party [...]
Here’s an article that highlights why it’s going become increasingly important for environmentalists to become familiar with history of eco-fascism so such nonesense is never repeated and so environmental movements don’t get infiltrated and subsequently discredited by far-right operatives. With around half of the world’s populace living within 200 kilometers of a coastline, rising sea levels could be causing social upheaval — exactly the kind of scenario that could give rise to misdirected forms of environmentalism — for a long long time:
We’re almost guaranteeing that future generations will be facing forced real austerity via environmental degradation with all of the horrific choices that come with such a scenario. So let’s hope present and future environmentalists are aware of the risk of fascist infiltration as the environment becomes and more and more important topic to the public at large. The German Greens, for instance, surprised the German political establishment with big gains in the Lower Saxony elections this week and as the climate continues to change we should expect that trend to apply to Green parties around the globe. Poisoning those parties’ futures with fascist infiltrators is an obvious strategy so they had better be on guard...for a long long time.
http://www.vexnews.com/2013/06/the-hate-boat-greensparty-wanted-to-go-solidarity-sailing-with-nazi-holocaust-denier/
THE HATE BOAT: Greensparty wanted to go “solidarity” sailing with Nazi holocaust denier
By VEXNEWS ⋅ June 20, 2013
greenznazisThe notorious New South Wales branch of the Greensparty has once again embroiled the party in scandal, following revelations in The Australian that it has forged close ties with the nation’s most infamous Holocaust denier and Nazi, Fredrick Töben.
They even invited him to sail in solidarity to raise funds for Gaza, in protest at Israel’s attempts to stop the flow of weapons and equipment used by terrorists there against Israeli civilians and enemies of the Hamas-led regime there. The non-sharia booze cruise for Gaza wasn’t cheap:
$75 regular | $100 solidarity (inclusive of food and fine company)
Emails between an unnamed Greensparty staffer who we can reveal is Mark Riboldi, an electorate officer to David Shoebridge MLC, show a close degree of interaction between the supposedly left-wing MP’s state electorate office and the notorious anti-Semite from Adelaide. A Google search, the general notoriety of Töben including a lot of press last year relating to an anti-discrimination case against him, mean their denial that they were aware of his views and activities strains credulity. As you’ll see, Töben wasn’t shy about writing about “Jewish pressure” in correspondence with the Greensparty. And of course, Töben could very well be a Greensparty voter given the well-established environmentalist tradition in Nazi ideology.
Young-Greens-Israel-poll-webThe revelations come after a Greensparty asked its supporters and members “Do you believe Israel has a right to exist?” an agenda item perhaps lifted from a Ku Klux Klan conference.
The Australian’s Christian Kerr, who has been understandably agitating for redeployment from Canberra to Melbourne, has done well to shine light on a very sinister email exchange showing the Greensparty and Nazis show common cause when it comes to hating the Jewish state, Israel. The Australian reveals:
Mr Shoebridge’s office emailed Dr Toben a link to his speech on March 25.
“Many, many thanks, Mark – and all the very best to David – and I do hope there will not be a bending to Jewish pressure after this courageous stance!” Dr Toben said in a return email the same day.
“Definitely not,” came a response from Mr Shoebridge’s office two days later.
Usually Israel haters are careful to refer to “Zionists” rather than directly referring to Jews. Mark Riboldi was not disturbed by the plain-speaking about the Jews. Quite reminiscent of that other anti-Semite, one-time Christian Kerr boss turned foe Stephen Mayne, who once told an ABC radio audience he’d submitted to what he claimed was omnipotent Jewish power by just following the editorial line of the Jewish News on Israel when he ran Crikey.
The publication’s carnival of Israel-hating writers at the time mustn’t have got Mayne’s memo. As ever with Mayne, now a carpetbagging local councillor in league with dodgy developers’ mate Darebin mayor Tim Laurence, it was a fib. Mayne told a lot of fibs back then, Crikey insiders say, especially those co-founders he reputedly defrauded in their partnership when it came to divvy up the spoils from the sale to Eric Beecher. Whatever one might say about Kerr – and we’ve said plenty – he is sound on Israel and troubled by anti-Semitism.
The Greensparty-Nazi alliance exposed by Christian Kerr today is about as confronting and worrying as anything else we’ve ever seen from the Greens. Their pre-occupation with Israel, their insistence on the Jewish state being some kind of villain while remaining silent about the Middle East’s real human rights abusers like the Saudis and Syrians, can now be seen in its proper context.
A Google search of the Greensparty’s intended guest Fredrick Töben is a horror show. He is undoubtedly Australia’s most prominent and infamous Holocaust denier, saluted with the Third Reich salute by his fans during his multiple criminal trials. He has produced lengthy texts and videos making his case that among other things: 1) the Holocaust didn’t happen, 2) Nazi death camp prisoners were fed better than Germans in general and 3) those gas chambers were just designed to make sure no-one got nits during their stay. It’s vile, menacing and horrible stuff.
markriboldiAnd the staffer who invited him – Mark Riboldi – has a Linkedin page shows he claims to have been a “researcher,” a “communications assistant” to the NSW Greensparty, not before he started as an electorate officer working for David Shoebridge, in a self-titled role “Communications and Policy Advisor”. His duties extend to answering the phone, the tweets and inviting Nazis to anti-Israel events. The bloke can use Google. It’s frankly impossible to imagine he hadn’t heard of him, while taking such a keen interest in the Middle East.
And even when the Greensparty high command decided there was too much heat to allow Töben to attend in full-dress Nazi uniform, Shoebridge’s staffer didn’t say we don’t like your views, he apologised for the inconvenience and merely said his views would “likely offend a number of guests who we work with frequently.” Nothing about Shoebridge or the staffer or the Greensparty themselves being offended. Riboldi wrote:
“Hi Frederick, I’m afraid we’re going to have to rescind our invitation to this event. I have been informed that, based on your past actions and views, your presence will likely offend a number of guests who we work with frequently. Apologies for any inconvenience. Mark for David.”
It appears Toben got angry as a result of being uninvited, demanded his hosts pay him for his airfare to Sydney and appears to have provided details of his correspondence to maximise the trouble for the Greensparty as a payback. While all that’s amusing, it’s no laughing matter that the Greensparty and Australia’s most prominent Holocaust-denier have been so closely connected at all.
The Greensparty’s continued involvement in the Nazi-emulating Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions blitzkreig against the Jewish state, their extensive interaction with Holocaust deniers and Nazis is perplexing, confusing for those who like to peg them as self-indulgent idealistic lefties who love koalas and didn’t grow out of student politics.
Maybe some of them are like that. Maybe some of them mean well. The anti-Labor left tradition is a long-term, albeit fringe, part of Australian politics.
herrshoebridge
But the fact the Greensparty attracts and is comfortable with support from Nazis ought worry all of us.
Not everyone sympathetic to the plight of the hopelessly divided and poorly led Palestinians is an anti-Semite or is even anti-Israel. But those who impose impossible standards on Israel (that they never seek to apply on other Mid-East countries), those who find themselves supporting the Gazans or the West Bankers or Hezbollah or even the Syrian rebels who snack on the hearts of their enemies are getting into bed with the political enemies of everything we politically value in Australia: human rights, individual liberty, religious freedom and democracy.
It should come as no surprise that those who oppose Israel attract Nazis and far-right groups like flies to rotten eggs. The long sweep of history shows they are part of the same tradition, frequently employing the same tactics (like boycotts), with thinking similarly twisted and troubled, motivated by deeply worrying sentiments we once dared to dream were extinguished when the Nazi death camps were liberated and Israel from the ashes of the Holocaust.
At Yad Vashem, the Holocaust Museum, there’s a memorial wall that reads in the languages of the world “Never again.” When you confront the fact that currently elected members of Australian parliaments – from the Greensparty no less – are in league with those who pretend the Holocaust didn’t happen because they are sympathetic to its perpetrators, we’re powerfully reminded that those words “Never again” have a great deal of meaning still. “Never again” isn’t a boast, it’s a reminder that there is evil in the world and we must always be ready to identify it and have the courage to act against it.
UPDATE: The Greensparty MLC responsible for this unpleasantness says it’s all a big misunderstanding and that he didn’t intend for the Holocaust denier to be invited to the anti-Israel booze cruise:
“Probably the most offensive view you can have in relation to the issue of Israel and Palestine is to be a Holocaust denier,” he told the ABC.
Yeh, probably.
UPDATE: David Shoebridge has refused to sign the London declaration condemning anti-Semitism.
UPDATE: David Shoebridge gives a reasonably good account of himself on Sydney radio, distancing himself from the actions of his rogue staffer.
UPDATE: The Australian reports in a follow-up yarn that a “split” has emerged in the Greensparty over how to handle their Greens-Nazi relationship. Some – like former Christine Milne staffer and violist – Tim Hollo impressed with his no-holds-barred attack on those responsible for building friendships with Nazis:
The invitation was sent to Dr Toben after an email exchange with Shoebridge staffer Mark Riboldi, who sent a link to a March 25 debate in the NSW Legislative Council on a study trip to Israel that was hijacked by pro-Palestinian MPs. In the exchange Mr Riboldi agreed he would “definitely not” be bending to Jewish pressure.
Mr Hollo condemned Mr Riboldi’s conduct: “As a proud Jewish Green, I have spent years convincing people it is wrong and offensive to conflate criticising Israel’s government and armed forces with anti-Semitism. In this context, David Shoebridge’s staffer’s approach to Fredrick Toben is an inexcusable error that is completely out of step with Greens policies, values and action.
“He should not be allowed to tarnish the great work done by the rest of the party.”
You can’t fault Hollo’s tough-on-slime approach. Other Greenistas were less certain of just how critical they could be of those seeking the black-leathery embrace of Nazi chums.
For example, Comrade Hollo’s old boss-cocky Christine Milne thought it was best to just condemn anti-Semitism rather than those cuddling up to it:
“The Australian Greens totally reject and condemn anti-Semitism . . . It is abhorrent. We condemn unreservedly Holocaust denials. It has no place anywhere in Australia society,” Senator Milne said. “The horrendous consequences of the Holocaust are still being felt around the world and I am appalled that people like Dr Toben engage in fabrication of history and . . . spread and engage in anti-Semitism.”
But she stopped short of condemning Mr Shoebridge.
UPDATE: This issue has done as much to damage the reputation of the Greensparty as anything else they’ve ever done.
It comes as no surprise – to them or anyone else – that if they attack, campaign against and besmirch the Jewish state of Israel they will inevitably attract the attention and support of anti-Semites, in Holocaust-denier and/or Nazi form. It doesn’t help that Nazism itself had a conservationist/environmental element to it.
This should give them pause. The Greensparty is not a party of race-hate. But their willingness to engage with those who are, to even invite them on booze cruises, is a worry about how they are evolving.
It boils down to this: they are wrong about Israel. Israel’s Tel Aviv sandal-wearers and beach-bums have far more in common with Greens than they could imagine unless they’ve been there. Israel’s vibrant, puzzling and fluid democracy is far more consistent with the proportional representation voting system and polity favoured by inner-city leftists who’d love a Stephen Jolly Socialist list to get a couple of MPs, next to the Greensparty, a couple of Assange-ites and other space cadets. Our system is far better, of course.
Israel was – once – a lefty darling. But it kind of fell out favour when it proved its capacity to defend itself against the invading armies of Arab dictatorships (some Soviet-linked, many ultra-conservative), and maintained close ties with the United States. By defending its borders and people successfully and – after many decades of terrible struggle – building a successful export-oriented, innovative economy, Israel lost its under-dog status and there’s nothing a lefty loves more than an underdog. Now it’s the Palestinians who look like they’ve got the rough end of the stick. Any sensible analysis of recent events shows that it’s entirely self-imposed, usually by their inept, thieving and extremist leadership. Terror attacks on Israeli civilians caused Israeli security to tighten up. Somehow this was conflated into Israel being an “apartheid” state despite a rich cultural and ethnic diversity in Israel, which no-one could reasonably deny. It is a remarkably cosmopolitan, diverse and inclusive society with a great passion for liberties and freedoms, certainly as much as our society is, if not more.
The Greensparty’s indulgence in supporting a “boycott” of the Jewish state is an outrage.
They are – indeed – as the Australian’s powerful editorial persuasively argued this morning “a ship of fools.” They put it best:
By flirting with BDS, the Greens forfeit the right to be considered a mainstream party. It demonstrates a preference for the company of the numbats and conspiracists in the dark and dangerous fringelands. Until the party disentangles itself, forcefully and unambiguously, from the BDS movement and those who would see a democratic, sovereign nation wiped from the map, its chances of being taken seriously are zero.
[...] are calling for Germany to give Snowden Asylum. (As discussed in other programs, the German Greens themselves have a fascist history and work–perhaps without their full awareness–in [...]
http://www.jpost.com/LandedPages/PrintArticle.aspx?id=318973
The Nazi roots of the German Greens
By BENJAMIN WEINTHAL, JERUSALEM POST CORRESPONDENT
07/07/2013
Academic and journalistic research over the past five years shows the key role of Nazi figures in the party’s founding and development.
BERLIN – The German Green Party’s legislative action to label Israeli products from the West Bank has cast a spotlight on the role that former Nazis played in creating the party.
Academic and journalistic research over the past five years shows the key role of Nazi figures in the party’s founding and development.
After strong similarities were revealed between an initiative by Germany’s neo- Nazi NPD party last year in a state parliament to demarcate Israeli products and a Green Party federal initiative in the Bundestag to impose a similar system on Israeli goods, critics pointed to the “Brown” — the color symbolizing Nazism – roots of the Green Party in an effort to explain the punitive measure directed at Jewish businesses.
The popular pro-Israel website Lizas Welt tweeted last month, “Not sure what the Greens actually have against Nazis. They even sometimes copy from them.”
Lala Süsskind, former head of Berlin’s Jewish community and chairwoman of the NGO Jewish Forum for Democracy and Against Anti-Semitism, termed the Green Party initiative hostile to Jews at an event last month.
Dr. Martin Kloke, an expert on contemporary German anti-Semitism, urged the Greens in a blog post on Die Achse des Guten (The Axis of Good) to critically examine and work through their “ambivalent role in the history of leftist German anti- Zionism and anti-Semitism.”
Dr. Clemens Heni, a leading German researcher on modern anti-Semitism, told The Jerusalem Post that Werner Vorgel, a former member of the Nazi Party and of its SA stormtroopers, “was among the first elected members of the Greens to the Bundestag in 1983.”
After the media exposed Vogel’s background, he resigned from the Bundestag.
Heni said that leading Green Party politicians at the time did not object to Vogel’s membership in the party.
Heni added that the founders of the Greens welcomed August Haussleiter, who, as co-founder of the Greens in 1979, played an important role in the party’s development. Haussleiter was active in Hitler’s Munich Beer Hall Putsch in 1923 and praised the German Wehrmacht in 1942. He stoked anti-American and anti-Semitic sentiments in post-World War II West Germany, said Heni.
Baldur Springmann, a former member of the SA, also played an important role in the nascent phase of the German Green party. He left the party in 1980.
Heni said that Henning Eichberg also played an important role in the founding the Green Party in the southern German state of Baden-Wurttemberg in 1979, although he did not choose to become a member. Eichberg had closes ties with former Nazi anti-partisan specialist Arthur Ehrhardt of the SS.
When asked about the role of former Nazis in the creation of the Green Party, Michael Schroeren, the party’s spokesman in the Bundestag, wrote the Post by email that such allegations are absurd and queries along these lines lead nowhere.
The history of the Green Party and Nazism has added greater scrutiny to the role of Green MPs toward Israel.
The Green Party MP Kerstin Müller, who is slated to head the party’s Heinrich Böll Foundation branch in Tel Aviv, helped handmaiden the initiative in the Bundestag to label Israel products.
Germany’s Jewish community has slammed her views toward Israel and the security of the Jewish state over the years.
The Central Council of Jews in Germany said in 2010 Müller displays an “intolerably paternalistic tone” toward Israel and toward Jews in Germany. That year, she supported an anti-Israel parliamentary resolution and attacked the council in a letter because its leadership criticized the resolution. The resolution rebuked Israel for its interception of the Turkish vessel Mavi Marmara, which tried to break Israel’s legal blockade of the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip.
The Post obtained a copy of Müller’s letter blasting Germany’s Jews for criticizing the resolution. In it, Müller writes that the Central Council’s criticism of the parliamentary resolution as “one sided and taking sides against Israel” is indefensible.
The Simon Wiesenthal Center considers Müller’s appointment to run the Böll Foundation in Tel Aviv as scandalous in light of her activities against the Jewish state.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013–06-20/greens-confirm-invitation-to-holocaust-denier/4767324
Greens invited Holocaust denier Frederick Tobin to fundraiser ‘by accident’
Updated Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:25am AEST
Frederick Tobin talks to reporters in June 2011. Photo: Holocaust denier Frederick Tobin talks to reporters outside the Federal Court in Adelaide, June 2011. (AAP: Guy David, file photo)
Map: Australia
The Greens say they accidentally invited a notorious Holocaust denier to a function in aid of Palestinians last month.
Frederick Tobin, who has spent time in jail in Germany because he denies the Holocaust took place, was invited onto a Greens boat trip to raise money for Gaza.
New South Wales Greens MLC David Shoebridge says his name came onto the mailing list by error.
“Probably the most offensive view you can have in relation to the issue of Israel and Palestine is to be a Holocaust denier,” he said.
“As soon as it became aware who he was his invitation was summarily withdrawn.”
Members of the Jewish community have expressed disappointment that Mr Tobin was invited to the function in the first place.
Are we going to see a Black-Green alliance form? It’s possible:
Here’s a story one doesn’t expect to read everyday: Sweden’s housing minister stepped down. Why? For getting caught hanging out with some unsavory characters. Specifically, the local leader of the Turkish Gray Wolves ultra-nationalists as well as the leaders various Turkish Islamist organizations. And the guy is a member of the Green Party. It’s an unfortunate turn of events for Sweden’s Greens:
“Prime Minister Stefan Lofven called Kaplan “a man with humanist and democratic values” but said his decision to step down was correct after an “overall assessment” of the situation.”
Yeah, an “overall assessment” of the situation is probably in order when you Green Party minister is caught cavorting with Turkish Islamists and ultra-nationalists. Keep in mind that this isn’t the first time Mehmet Kaplan has a raised an eyebrow over his casual embraces of Islamist (he called Swedish jihadis traveling to Syria “freedom fighters” that no one needs to worry about, back in 2014), so any overall assessment is probably overdue too. And as the article below points out, it’s more than just Mehmet Kaplan’s resume that needs an overdue overall assessment. The general secretary of Swedish Muslims for Peace and Justice, a group co-founded by Kaplan, also just had to resign from his Green Party position. Why? He refuses to shake women’s hands:
“In interviews with Swedish media, Khan lashed out at his critics and said that the debate, and his fellow Muslim Green Party member Mehmet Kaplan’s resignation, had caused him to run out of energy.”
Getting outed as an Islamist in a Green Party is a pretty good reason for Khan’s resignation. And having two party members resign in a week over Islamist ties is a pretty good reason for the Green Party itself to have an overall assessment. Is Sweden’s Green Party ties to Islamists limited to just these two? Hopefully, but unlikely:
“But it didn’t end there. New images emerged where Kaplan and other Muslim members of the Green Party were seen holding up four fingers, a hand gesture used by the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. One of them, a Green Party youth leader, walked into the picture during a live broadcast on Swedish television and flashed the sign behind the presenter.”
Yeah, when your party leaders start flashing Muslim Brotherhood hand gestures on live TV, you might have an Islamist infiltration problem. But at least it appears Sweden’s Greens are taking this seriously:
Well, it’s a start. But it’s worth keeping in mind that the Muslim Brotherhood organizations around the globe have a long history of feigning moderation for the purpose of achieving political power...for the final purpose of ending politics and creating a theocracy. So if the Greens do discover that they have an Islamist infiltration problem, one of the more interesting possible approaches to the situation would be sit down the alleged Islamists with one of the Greens’ more formidable feminist debaters, and just have an extended discussion over all sorts of issues that Islamists tend not to like to talk about in public settings. Would that be fun? As Yasri Khan put it:
Yes, Khan is charging Sweden’s Green party with ethnocentric and prejudices ideas of gender equality. Ok, well, that seems like a great excuse to have an in-depth discussion with an Islamist over his ideas of gender equality, ideas that appear to involve men not shaking hands with women. So how about Mr. Khan sits down with Sweden’s actual feminists and have a nice long back and forth about what Islamist variations of feminism entails. It probably wouldn’t be as revealing as, say, the recent VICE interview of an Afghan MP who threatened to cut the nose of the VICE reporter off when she question him about his views on marital rape, but it could still be useful. And if it’s done respectfully, just imagine the impact that could have with the large numbers of Muslim refugees who may not have had a chance to really hear a vibrant debate between a feminist and Islamist. That kind of debate can’t happen in many of the countries those refugees are fleeing from so Sweden, or anywhere in Europe with large numbers of Muslim refugees, is kind of ideal setting for that kind of discussion right now.
So if Sweden’s Greens find themselves with an Islamist infiltration problem, why not turn that problem into a vehicle for infiltrating the Islamist mindset with modern ideals. What party is better suited for that task than the Greens?
@Pterrafractyl–
Always worth remembering who the Turkish “radicals” really are:
“On the Trail of Turkey’s Grey Wolves” by Martin A. Lee; Consortium News; 6/27/2015.
https://consortiumnews.com/2015/06/27/on-the-trail-of-turkeys-terrorist-grey-wolves/
. . . .Led by Colonel Alpaslan Turkes, the National Action Party espoused a fanatical pan-Turkish ideology that called for reclaiming large sections of the Soviet Union under the flag of a reborn Turkish empire. Turkes and his revanchist cohorts had been enthusiastic supporters of Hitler during World War II.
“The Turkish race above all others” was their Nazi-like credo. In a similar vein, Grey Wolf literature warned of a vast Jewish-Masonic-Communist conspiracy and its newspapers carried ads for Turkish translations of Nazi texts.
The pan-Turkish dream and its anti-Soviet component also fueled ties between the Grey Wolves and the Anti-Bolshevik Bloc of Nations (ABN), a CIA-backed coalition led by erstwhile fascist collaborators from East Europe. . . .
On the web site of the Green Party of the United States, you would find the following statement on the history of the Green Party in the United States:
“The Green Party in the United States is now in its fourth decade, founded in 1084 the party has run a national ticket in every presidential election since 1984.” (gp.org)
The above is a mixed history of The Green Party of the United States with the history of The Greens/Green Party USA.
America’s first green party was The Committees of Correspondences that was established in 1984. In 1991 it changed its name to The Greens/Green Party USA. There was a press conference about this that was aired on C‑SPAN on August 27, 1991. This press conference can now be seen on the internet. Nothing was said about The Green Party of the United States because that party did not exist at that time.
In 1996, representatives of state green parties, which had few active members at that time,and independent of GPUSA, met behind closed doors, locking on GPUSA leaders and its members from that meeting, and formed a new political party: The Association of State Green Parties.(Why Are There Two Green Parties) (Twentieth Anniversary of the American Green) Movement)greenparty.org
In 2001, the Association of State Green Parties changed its name to The Green Party of the United States. GPUSA members felt that new name sounded too much like that of Greens/Green Party USA and was changed to that name in order to cause confusion in people’s minds between the two parties which are as different frpm each other as night is from day.
GPUSA is a membership organization funded by dues and small donations. There are no donations from business or the rich. This is to avoid having to answer to special interests,
On the other hand, GPUS is just like any other party, taking money from wherever it can get it, be it large corporations it claims to be against or rich Republicans. For example:
Florida Republican Money Flows to Green Party Candidate Ursula Razum, she gives it to charity, by Michelle Breidenbach (mbreidenbach@syracuse.com)
The story: Members of the Grace family gave URSULA Razum a check of $6000 for her campaign. Turns out that the donors were members of the family that owned the Grace National Bank, now known as Marine Midland Bank and also gave much bigger donors to Ann Marie Buerkle, the Republican candidate running against Democrat candidate Dan Muffie.
“it is apparent that these donations are intended to help me win votes that might otherwise go to Dan Maffei and help Ann Buerrle win the election”, said Ursula Razum in the above article.
And here’s another story on Republican money going to a Green Party Candidate:
Green Party Candidate Finds He’s a Republican Pawn, by Sam Howe Verhavek
New York Times, August 8, 2001.
According to the article, Green party candidate Young S Han received donations and help with his campaign from Stan Shore, a Republican, whose job is to siphon votes from Democrats in close races.
It gets worse. In 2006, Carl Romaneli, GPUS candidate for United States Senator for Pennsylvanian, ran his campaign with 99% Republican money.
Green Party Politics: Pennsylvania Green takes GOP donations in Ballot Drive. Democracy Now! aired October 25, 2006 and articles at greenparty.org, web site of The Greens/Green Party USA.
But not only is GPUS ready and willing to take donations from The Republican Party and rich Republicans, it has also worked with them in braking the law.
Did the Texas Green Party Willfully Break the Law? by Matt Glazer, Burn
orange Reporter, lone Star Project.
The Texas Green Party worked hand in hand with Republicans of that state to use money, set up by a non-profit corporation for such items as office expenses, to pay for the gathering of signatures to help get GPUS candidates on the ballet.
“We just did not have enough money to get the petition signatures on our own,” said Green Party Executive Director Kat Swift.
More information on America’s green parties at a later date.
continuing from above:
Take Institute America was the name of the Republican organization helping the Texas Greens to get the signatures needed for the upcoming election at that time. Turned out that Take America was being run by Mike Toomay, who paid a University of Texas student to get the signatures the Greens needed. Mr Toomay had been Rick Perry’s chief of staff, at one time.
(Carla Marincci, Chronicle Political Writer)
And get this:When Democrat national Comm
Now, let’s take a look at the left’s darlig, Ralph Nader.
Nader Defnds GOP Cash: Candidate says he’s keeping money, by Carla Marinicci.
And get this: When Democratic national Committee Chair Terry McAuliff and Howard Dean told Nader to return the Republican money, he called what they said a smear effect. Yet, even Nader’s Green Party running mate, Peter Camrjo told Mr Nader to return the money. Not Nader. In fact, in yet another article, GOP Donors Funding Nader/Bush supporters give independent’s bid a financial lift, by the same author for the same newspaper, it reads that of donations of $10,000 or more to Nader, one in ten came from rich Republicans.
Today, Donald Trump has said that he wants people to vote for green Party candidate Jill Stein. And lots of people are going to do just that because they just refuse to believe the con job being played on them by the Green Party.
more information coming
So whatever could be said about taking donations from Republicans, the Green party of the US, has always been on the right side. No, it has not.
During the second war with Iraq, GPUSA issued a paper, No Blood For Oil — Stop the War In Iraq, and organized street protests against the war, of which GPUS tried to take credit for but in fact did very little to protest the war. Al this mase GPUSA a target for the government.
In November of 2001, Nancy Oden of GPUSA, was prevented by the national Guard from boarding a plane to attend a national Green Party meeting.
She told the press that her name had been flagged in the computer because she was a member of The Greens/Green Party USA and that the national Guards at the airport did their best to try to get her to do something stupid so she could be arrested.She also said that some unknown person had called the hotel she would have been straying to cancel.
Because of this, she and GPUSA called for other groups to join them in forming a National Bill of Rights Defense Committee to defend the civil rights of these speaking out against war. One of the groups asked to join was The Green Party of the United States. The response from that group was shocking.
Walt Sheaby of GPUS called GPUSA a small splinter group of the green movement in the US that is just looking for press and that Nancy Oden was just some kind of a nut who refused to follow simple instructions and made a big screen out of nothing that could have been avoided had she behaved in a more civil manner, he said in so many words. And Nancy Allen, also of GPUS, agreed with everything Sheaby had to say.
Green Pary Coordinator Detained at Airport(www.counterpunch.org) November 15, 2001
What’s happen with the Banger Airport Incident, by Nancy Oden (Counterpunchorg
it’s Not Always Easy being the Right Shade of Green Party, by Bruce Kyle (Bango Daily News)
As for GOUSA being a small splinter group. At that time, it was a much bigger and more important pary than Green Party of the United States.
more information tomorrow.
After Gore lost to Bush. GPUS was in deep financial trouble. So it turned to two people for help: Catherine Austin Fitts and Franklin Sanders, two most unusual people for this green party to be dealing with, if one believes everything Green Party of the United States tells about itself.
Catherine Austin Fitts, Green Party delegate from Tennessee, had worked as Assistant Secretary of Housing for George Bush Sr. Franklin Sanders was a leading thinker of the Constitution Party and Chairman of the Tennessee wing of the League of the South, a group, to make a long story short, would like to see black people in America again slaves. Of all the people in the world, why would this Green Party pick these two? And how many like them hold high places in this Green Party? I am not saying this is the case. But I think we should be asking the question.
The Making of a Political Silhouette, by Joshua Frank
In February of 2005, The Greens/Green Party USA had its status as a political party removed by the FEC. Two reasons are given: A candidate in New York State made an error in filing papers with the FEC and the party had not had shown any income expenses in years. However, it is FEC policy to send a letter to give a candidate a chance to correct the mistake. FEC does not remove the political status of a party because of a mistake in filing papers with it. Second, if GPUSA truly had no financial actions, how could it run a candidate for public office?
When Nader ran as the Green Party candidate for president in 1996, he did not file with the FEC because he stated he would keep his donations below the $5000 limit called for in filing with the FEC. But he soon bypassed that limit and still did not file. Yet, no action that I know of was ever taken against him by the FEC.
Nader Watch: a project of voter revolt: complain against Ralph Nader
to the FEC on September 9, 1996, for his failing to register with the FEC and open his campaign and personal financial to the FEC as is required by law.
still more to come
The above is by no means the whole story about the Green Parties in America. But it is a part of the story that most people do not know about and should.
Green Appeasement Politics Dash Hopes of Unity, by Dan Fitz, Green Party of St. Louis/Gateway Green Alliance, September 1999 Published by the Greens/Green Party USA
This paper deals with the roots of where we are today with the Green Party of the United States and Ralph Nader’s role in bringing this about.
One group of greens saw working on day to day issues, helping people to have a better life, as the key to a better word, with an eye toward doing away with Capitalism. Elections were an issue, but helping people with problems faced every day came first. The second group wanted elections to be the main focus. The fist Group was the original green party in America, the Greens/Green Party USA and the second later became the Party that is now running Jill Stein for President, Green Party of the United States.
GPUSA was a dues paying organization, and mostly left wing, The other was mostly right wing that saw nothing wrong with the capitalism system that could not be fixed and rejected the left green’s views that capitalism needs to be done away with. The left was willing to work with the right for the greater good. Not the right. it set out to destroy GPUSA.
In 1996, the California Green Party nominated Ralph Nader for President against national votes not to run a candidate for president, even spreading lies about GPUSA approval of Nader. As the movement for Nader took off on its own, GPUSA had no choice but to joint it or risk going against what seem to be a popular movement with its members.
While the issues Nader spoke of were on the mark, Nader,himself was a problem. He did care for the views of others or even to give interviews to the green press. It was like GPUSA members were just children to do what they were told to do by their daddy, Ralph Nader. But more problems were to follow when the right members saw Nader’s run as a change to leave GPUSA and to start their own Green Party because Nader’s authoritarian views on how the party should be run, with the mass of members having almost no say but to obey orders from the top. But having their own party was still not enough. GPUSA still had to be destroyed. The best way of doing this was to attack its dues paying system. Some members of GPUSA were willing to bend over backwards to the tricky demands of the right to reform its dues membership system to that of just signing up members whose names were on a piece of paper. But without dues, GPUSA could not exist, which is what the right really wanted.
This paper was written in 1999, when GPUSA was still the important Green Party. But it clearly predicts how Green Party of the United States gained power and how Green/Green Party USA later lost it. People need to read this paper to gain a better understanding as to what Green party of the United States is really all about and why people should avoid it.
Jill Stein, as of October 25,2016, has joined Donald Trump in claiming that the polls are fixed in flavor of Hillary and that she, Jill Stein, get this, is really ahead of both Clinton and Trump! Could you believe this bullshit?
@David–
Can you provide us with a link documenting this?
Best,
Dave
Don’t know about Stein claiming that she is ahead of Trump. But what did happen was Stein claiming that the Democratic primaries were “rigged” in favor for Hillary.
Oct 21 2016
https://twitter.com/DrJillStein/status/789640049025486852
“If you vote for a party that disenfranchised millions by rigging its own primary, that perpetuates a corrupt system.”
And a couple days later, Breitbart is promoting Jill Stein’s comments to bolster the Trump rigged-election lie.
October 23 2016
http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/10/23/jill-stein-dems-manipulate-voters-media/
Partial quote of Breitbart article:
“Stein explained that the Democratic Party “rigged” the system to “disenfranchise” its own primary voters. Stein warned that any vote for Democratic candidates “perpetuates” this “corrupt system.”
“The Dems act more liberal than GOP, but their role in the system is to prevent progressives from defying corporate rule,” Stein tweeted, adding: “If you vote for a party that disenfranchised millions by rigging its own primary, that perpetuates a corrupt system.”
Stein explained that corporate media’s control over the dissemination of information has placed a “stranglehold… over our democracy.” Stein has previously explained that the corporate media is “prop[ping] up” Clinton’s campaign and has essentially enacted a media “blackout” of her own “people-powered” campaign.
“Despite Greens being on the ballot for 98% of voters, mainstream media has given us less than 1% of coverage they’ve given Trump & Clinton,” Stein tweeted. “Americans feel the establishment isn’t addressing issues we care about. So why do debates & media shut out competing visions of our future?”
“Let’s enact the no-brainer solutions to put an end to the stranglehold the corporate media has over our democracy,” Stein wrote.”
==========
@Mother Muckraker–
Breitbart News–just what we would expect to be banging the drum for a reigning in of corporate America.
Jill Stein is a classic “Turd Party” candidate, along the lines of Old Shop-Lifter Face–Ralph Nader.
Best,
Dave
I can’t find Jill Stein’s statement on her being ahead of Clinton and trump, but I did find this:
New Polls show Jill Stein winning — media doesn’t want you to know, by James Walker (10/14?16)Source plane
How a vote for Jill Stein in 2016 could help Gov. Rauner in 2018, by Philip O’Conner (Chicago Tribune)
Instead of the Green party, I would take a serious look at “Our Revolution.” This past elections it ran 50 candidates of which 25 won, running from the Senate to Congress and beyond; it seems to know how to win in major elections. Something the Green Party has never done. It’s still too soon to endorse, but it is worth taking a look at for anyone interested in what the Green Party talks about but never really does.
Slightly Off-Topic. Apologies don’t have a link appeared in NYT June 1, 2012
Klaas Faber, War Criminal Who Escaped Punishment, Is Dead at 90 — The Germans had refused to extradite him on the ground that he had German citizenship under an edict issued by Hitler in 1943 conveying it on foreigners who had aided the Nazi war cause.
Mass Senator Elizabeth Warren and other Progressive Democrats running for election are going to be prime targets of the Green party to help you know who.
Come on, people, let’s get the truth about this party out there now!
@David–
Do you have a link and/or source for this?
Best,
Dave
We got a big update on the squabbles over the ‘tanks for Ukraine’ debate among Western government that’s been playing out: the US just announced it’s planning on sending 31 Abrams tanks to Ukraine. Germany then declared that it was lifting its opposition to the donation to Ukraine of German-build Leopard tanks by NATO allies.
It wasn’t a coincidence that the two announcements were made on the same day. The German government, led by chancellor SPD leader Olaf Scholz, had held the position that Leopard tanks could only be approved for donations to Ukraine as long as the US sent Abrams tanks too, something the US had so far been resisting. That’s part of the story here: while 31 Abrams tanks is just a tiny fraction of the number of tanks Ukraine would need, the decision was needed to get a much larger number of Leopard tanks approved for delivery.
But as we’re going to see in the Naked Capitalism piece below, there’s another story here. Because while the private negotiations that led to the joint announcements by Germany and the US over the weekend were described as “intensive”, it turns out there’s been a much more public form of negotiation taking place on the issue. A public debate led by none other than Annalena Baerbock, Germany’s foreign minister. It turns out Baerbock, a green party member, is quite the hawk when it comes to issues like Russia and China. A hawk with a penchant for making public statements in opposition to the positions held by her boss chancellor Scholz.
And that’s exactly what Baerbock did in a recent interview with French journalists where she bluntly stated that “if we were asked, we would not stand in the way,” to the Polish delivery of Leopard tanks to Ukraine. When the interviewer asked for confirmation on the comments, Baerbock replied, “you understood me well.” Earlier this month, Vice Chancellor Robert Habeck also stated that Germany should not stand in the way if Poland decides to send Leopard tanks to Ukraine. And it also sounds look the FPD partners in the coalition government share the Greens’ view.
Oh, and it turns out Baerbock has ambitions to become chancellor someday and she’s one of the most popular politicians in Germany today. That’s part of the larger context here with this sudden US/German reversal on the ‘tanks of Ukraine’ issue: it happened in the middle of an intra-coalition Green mutiny led by someone who just might be Germany’s next chancellor.
Ok, first, here’s a look at the surprise flip on the US’s position on the Abrams tanks. Although, given the relatively small number of tanks involved, it’s less a flip and more a grudging compromise designed to get Germany to give the green light on all those Leopards:
“The dramatic reversal was the culmination of intense international pressure and diplomatic arm-twisting that played out over the last week. And it resulted in in a quick succession of announcements: The U.S. said it will send 31 of the 70-ton Abrams battle tanks to Ukraine, and Germany announced it will send 14 Leopard 2 tanks and allow other countries to do the same.”
It was indeed a reversal. Although not necessarily a complete reversal. The US opposition to sending any Abrams tanks has shifted. 31 tanks are slated to be delivered. It’s not exactly a massive delivery. But it doesn’t look like that was really the point. The point was to give in to Germany’s demands that the US first deliver some Abrams tanks before the German government would approve the donation of a larger number of German-built Leopard tanks to Ukraine by EU allies like Poland:
And that brings us to the following Naked Capitalism piece with some fascinating context on the “intensive” negotiations that led up to this series of joint announcements by the US and Germany. Context that amounts to an effective intra-coalition mutiny led by none other than Annalena Baerbock, the Green foreign minister in Olf Scholz coalition government of the SPD, FPD, and the Greens. As we’re going to see, while Scholz had remained resistant towards approving the export of Leopard tanks to Ukraine, both the Greens and the FPD had different views. And they made those views apparent to the world repeatedly. Earlier this month, Vice Chancellor Robert Habeck from the Greens stated that Germany should not stand in the way if Poland decides to send Leopard tanks to Ukraine. And then, over the weekend, Baerbock told interviewers that “if we were asked, we would not stand in the way.” When asked for confirmation on her statement Baerbock replied, “you understood me well.”
That’s some of the key context to keep in mind when trying to interpret the sudden decision by the US to send a relatively small number of Abrams tanks: it happened right after Germany’s foreign minister basically put Olaf Scholz into a corner on this issue. Scholz had an intra-coalition crisis on his hands after Baerbock gave that interview. A political crisis that was ultimately resolved with the joint announcements by the US and Germany.
But there’s another big of context here to keep in mind: it turns out Baerbock has chancellor ambitions of her own. Along with a vision for an EU with a newly robust foreign policy backed by a much stronger military overall. Along with much harsher stances on issues like China. In fact, Baerbock declared that Germany can “no longer be so fundamentally dependent on a country that does not share our values that we can be blackmailed in the end,” ahead of a visit to China by Scholz back in November. That was a statement by Germany’s foreign minister. And as we should expect, DC loves hers. Beyond that, she’s one of the most popular mainstream politicians in Germany today. And that’s part of the larger context around the Germany coalition mutiny that was just resolved with the joint US: the person who led that mutiny is well positioned to become Germany’s next chancellor. And she has big plans:
“But then foreign minister Annalena Baerbock during an interview with French television station LCI, said that “if we were asked, we would not stand in the way.” The interviewer double checked, to which Baerbock confidently replied, “you understood me well.””
German foreign minister Annalena Baerbock wasn’t going to be misunderstood. She was quite explicit about what the German government’s stance would be should Poland decide to send Ukraine those Leopard tanks. Which was presumably a surprise to her boss, Chancellor Olaf Scholz. It was an intra-coalition foreign policy dispute and Baerbock appeared to be intent on unilaterally resolving it. But as the piece noted, it wasn’t entirely unilateral. Vice Chancellor Robert Habeck from the Greens delivered the same message earlier this month and senior FPD figures appear to be fully on board. So in the lead up to the “intense” negotiations between the US and Germany the resulted in the big joint announcements the both Abrams and Leopard tanks were going to be sent to Ukraine, Scholz was facing a coalition mutiny:
And as we can see, Baerbock’s declarations that ended up backing Scholz into a corner were basically in line with what the US was pushing Germany to do and just approve the release of the Leopard tanks. So when we hear about the US decision to send a relatively small number of just 31 Abrams tanks, it really looks like a decision done purely to placate the domestic German political tensions at work here:
But then we get to this interesting detail: it looks like one of the reasons Germany was worried about approving the sending of Leopard tanks is concerns that the donated tanks will ultimately be replaced with Abrams tanks — like the $4 billion sale of Abrams tanks to Poland announced last month — instead of more Leopard tanks, effectively reducing Germany’s long-term market share in the tank export markets. And don’t forget what we saw in the above article: the US isn’t building new Abrams but instead refurbishing older ones. In other words, every Abrams tank that isn’t sent to Ukraine is a tank that can be sold to a NATO ally instead of a Leopard tank. It points towards one of the underlying tensions that could ultimately play out here: the more US Abrams that are sent to Ukraine the less worried Germany will be about the loss of its tank markets. In other words, don’t be surprised if we see future rounds of “Leopards, but only of Abrams are also sent” negotiations:
It’s also important to note how Baerbock isn’t just a hawk aligned with US long-term geostrategic interests when it comes to Ukraine. She’s a China hawk too. A China hawk with ambitions to become chancellor:
Beyond that, Baerbock appears to be fully on board with the grand “EU Army” ambitions championed by the previous foreign minister Ursula Von der Leyen. That’s also part of the context of Baerbock’s policy mutiny: It’s part of her clear plans to run of chancellor on a platform of an aggressive foreign policy backed by growing EU military might. It’s quite the ‘green’ platform:
Finally, note how Baerbock isn’t just a favorite to the foreign policy establishment in DC. She’s got the highest approval rating and any major Germany politicians:
We’ll see if ‘Chancellor Baerbock’ is in Germany’s future. Political winds can change. Especially when war is involved, as Olaf Scholz just discovered in a big way.