We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
Saki walks the walk H H Monro – who wrote under the pen name Saki – was a writer of mainly short stories. In most of them the innocent and gullible find themselves in an unequal struggle with the sly and devious.
In his novel When William Came he wrote about what would happen in the event of a German invasion. It is not a particularly good novel but it does describe the process by which die-hard patriots find themselves ever more isolated as more and more of the smart set – desperate to carry on as before – adapt themselves to occupation
When war came, Monro was a man in his 40s and as such could have stood aside. Instead he joined up. He was killed on the Somme a hundred years ago yesterday.
One our regular-ish commenters posts under the same name as one of Saki’s recurring characters so it will be interesting to hear Clovis Sangrail’s take.
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
Had the Emperor Frederick lived, rather than dying a tragically early death of cancer in 1888, history might have been very different. Frederick was not on board with the desire of much of the German intellectual and political elite for unlimited power and conquest. A madness that went back to the philosophy of Fichte and others – but had only slowly gained a stranglehold of Germany, in 1888 it was still possible that this view would NOT win.
And then there is the weird (to put it mildly) upbringing of the young Kaiser Wilhelm himself – the strange treatments for his withered arm (having animals killed in front of him as a toddler and then having the dying animal applied to his arm so the “life force” could be transfered to it) and his strict upbringing – where even his affectionate letters to his English mother (the doctor who messed up the birth of Wilhelm was also English – as was the doctor who attended to his dying father, although that was a hopeless case) returned with the spelling and grammar corrected.
His mother, a daughter of Queen Victoria, writing essay length letters which were strong on Classical Liberalism (such as his responsibility to keep down taxes and maintain the peace), but totally without affection. It was as if his mother was Prime Minister Gladstone and young Wilhelm was a government department being lectured on economy in spending. And being lectured on how culture (the arts) must be a matter of REASON – not emotions.
Unsurprisingly young Wilhelm rebelled – became a supporter of emotion (not reason), a hater of “capitalism” (associated with “the English” and “the Jews”) and a supporter of that faction of the German elite that wished for unlimited power and conquest.
The Emperor Wilhelm II first abandoned the alliance with Russia (to the horror of Bismark – also a seeker after power, but a rational [indeed cynical] one), and then rejected all offers of an alliance with Britain.
After all the German race was superior to the Slavs (the elite had taught Wilhelm this – even though the Royals and Aristocrats of the Slavs and Germans had intermarried for centuries) and one could not be friends with Britain (even though Wilhelm loved his grandmother Victoria and aspects of the British way of life) as Germany was going to replace Britain on the world stage.
And Germany was going to replace the United States in the New World – for America (like Britain and Russia) was going to go, to be replaced by Germany.
As for northern France and Belgium and so on – they were to be dominated by Germany with their population working for Germany.
Personally Wilhelm II was not a nasty man – indeed he could be charming (in the right mood), but his mind was filled with bad ideas.
Partly because he associated good ideas with his parents – who he both loved and HATED.
When his father died in 1888 Wilhelm even used troops to keep his mother under temporary house arrest – and searched the private papers of both his parents looking for evidence of (mythical) conspiracies of “the English” and “the Jews” against Germany. Again Wihelm could be charming to individual English people or individual Jews – whilst (at the same time) believing all sorts of conspiracy theories about them as groups.
It should be remembered that the defeat of Wilhelm in 1918 was not the defeat of these ideas – they sadly continued to have massive influence in Germany till 1945, when obvious defeat discredited them.
Wilhelm invented NONE of these ideas (they went back to Fichte and others) and they outlived him.
The ideas had to be fought – and as they were military ideas (“might makes right” there is no such thing as objective good and objective evil – only what is successful in the “historical stage” and what is good for “the race”) they had to be fought militarily – which meant that men such as “Saki” had to fight.
Also tactical victory would not do – as mercy (as in not marching on Berlin in 1918-1919) would be mistaken for WEAKNESS by a German elite that had (in part) been corrupted. Only total defeat (destruction) would discredit the ideas that had possessed (almost in a metaphysical sense of “possession”) Germany.
When the German Ambassador to the United Kingdom in 1914 returned to Germany (having read the pack-of-lies that was the German Declaration of War upon France – and having heard enough of the German private conversations that honour was “old fashioned” and objective morality was an “illusion”) he removed the picture of the Emperor Wilhelm II from his home and the wife of the Ambassador forbad anyone to even mention the name of the Emperor in the house.
But it was not one man – it was a movement, if anything Wilhelm was a VICTIM of these ideas (not an inventor of them). Deep down he was not a bad man – he was corrupted by vile ideas.
Lastly…..
These vile ideas (historism, moral relativism, determinism – the denial of the possibility of objective moral knowledge and the ability of human beings to CHOOSE between moral good and evil, in the terrible struggle we face every day) did not just infect Germany – they infected the world (including Britain and the United States) the German elite (or some of them – NOT all) were just an extreme case.
In the United States such scholars as Irving Babbit and P.E. Moore (the tutor of T.S. Eliot) fought the moral decay – the relativism, historicism, and the determinism.
And in the United Kingdom it was fought in Oxford by Professor Harold Prichard, Professor Sir William David Ross (Major Ross), and J.R.R. Tolkien and C.S. Lewis.
Both Tolkien and Lewis regarded their peace time struggle against the moral relativists, historicists and determinists as every bit as grim as their fighting on the Western Front during the First World War.
My mum used to read Sredni Vashtar to me. We also delighted in ‘Ruthless Rhymes for Heartless Homes’ and giggled at the mannered horrors together. She was awesome.
I always admired Saki from the moment as a teenager when I discovered the pleasure to be gained from his relentless undermining of the triumph of hope and of mannered society.
Foremost among his heroes is Clovis Sangrail –sly, ruthless observer and manipulator of the hypocritical and the ineffectually virtuous.
It took me twenty years to discover Saki’s novel When William Came and his principled participation and death in the First World War.
Then I was forced to reappraise his work and I began to realise that his stories, usually gloriously witty, actually reflected a coherent and moral world view.
This is not the place to go into it but I think he despised the sort of pretentious and showy hypocrisy that is nowadays typified by what is termed virtue signalling. I think the reason so much of his humour is rather grim is because, without ever saying it, he valued above all others the cardinal virtue of prudence. This is not what Gordon Brown meant, or even what the Catholic Church means, although their take is a lot better, mainly thanks to Joseph Pieper https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josef_Pieper
The short version is that it’s the skill which maximises your chance of not having to say “I meant well”. The slightly longer version is that it consists of three parts, memoria – learning from past experience; docilitas – open-mindedness and receptiveness to advice; solertia – sagacity: understanding the goal and foreseeing the consequences of an action.
Many of Saki’s short stories show people being imprudent and suffering as a result.
Clovis, on the other hand, is an amoral but prudent observer and profiter from others’ mis-steps.
I think Obama’s Hope poster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_%22Hope%22_poster was the final push for adopting my nom de plume.
Saki also hated a bully with a bitter loathing and very occasionally (as in Sredni Vashtar) he was willing to show a deserving character receive their comeuppance. I think his objection to Imperial Germany and what followed stemmed from a visceral but principled response to what he saw as a global bully.
All in all, I think he was a pretty cool guy.
Here – for the delectation of lazy people like me – is a 1962 TV dramatisation of some of Saki’s short stories – including Sredni Vashtar.
It’s a thing when you have to approve your own comments.
@Patrick Crozier:
Without wishing to over-inflate your possibly already inflated ego, I have to make this encomium to say that – without even knowing you – my estimation for you has risen several points as a result of what you wrote there.
I’m a Kiwi with little interest in American politics per se, but I take an interested and a highly critical view as an observer of what the US is doing on the world stage, which, of course, includes electing its presidents.
For me the Obama “Hope” poster was a sickening statement about the insularity, gullibility and naivety of the American people. I thought he had the potential to make a successful President for America, and I hoped that was what he would be. I expected that, if he did not turn up trumps (no pun intended), then the electorate would correct their mistake.
Sadly, US commentators quietly indicated that his 8-year tenure seems to have been pretty much acknowledged as an unmitigated clusterfark, and his mediocrity has been observable by all, from afar. The spectacle of what often seemed to onlookers to be an at times arrogant, conceited, narcissistic, hypocritical virtue-signalling international toady with an apparently careless disregard and rationalization for bombing helpless peoples was not very pleasant to watch.
He seems to have badly let down the American people in general and as the first black US president, he has let down his colour and himself specifically. He could have done so much better, but he failed the test and history will probably not be too kind to him.
He may even be
– as someone so famously put it…
There must have been an upwelling revolt in the minds of the people, because now the electorate have decisively made the correction of their mistake, by rejecting both Obama and his legacy and his preferred candidate – an apparently unelectable (corrupt, crooked/dishonest and mistake-prone socialist/marxist) candidate who smugly could not seem to shoulder accountability for her actions – in favour of the Trump wild card. The electorate have chosen a relative unknown and politically disinterested candidate over a flawed and known-only-too-well candidate.
Lost – as they presumably are – in their fascistic self-substantiating and self-vindicating righteous anger, those TARDs making vociferous and violent protest about the democratic outcome of this election probably do not realise that the whole world is probably nervously watching to see whether these monkeys will go full batshit crazy and a danger to world peace the way that Germany did in the ’30s.
Hitler was never re-elected into power. He did not even get elected. Germans never voted the National Socialist Party into power – though they almost did.
What happened was that President Hindenburg appointed Hitler as Chancellor on January 30, 1933. Then followed the Enabling Act of March 24 after the Reichstag fire. Under the Act, the government had acquired the authority to pass laws without either parliamentary consent or control. (Source: Wikipedia)
These laws could (with certain exceptions) even deviate from the Constitution, and the Act had effectively eliminated the Reichstag as active players in German politics.
History has a glaring example for us, right there.
When a US president or a Senator, or a leading presidential candidate starts to persistently chip away at parts of the American Constitution – for whatever “common good” reason – then Americans – and the rest of the world – should be afraid – very afraid.
But that couldn’t possibly happen in the good ol’ USA. of course. Oh, but wait…
I vote for “Patrick Crozier” and for his right to approve his own comments on this blog.
I forgot to mention my gratitude for that YouTube link, I have been meaning to catch up on those excellent TV productions for years, and you’ve just made it so simple…
Perhaps I can return the favour: The Complete Short Stories of Saki (H. H. Munro) Kindle Edition – for USD1.29
Not bad, eh?
I bought that for my 15 y/o daughter’s Eng,Lit. improvement (and for myself, of course!). I used to have all the HHM stories in hardcopy, but they (and my whole library of good books) were lost in a fire (it was arson), years ago. Ironically, one of the books lost was Ray Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451. 🙁
I’ve turned over a new leaf and gone digital (image and OCR) since then. I mean, why not? It was a bit of a long-term experiment, but it seems useful, though I actually prefer the tactile sense and ergonomics of reading a physical book, rather than a Kindle tablet.
Just correcting my first post above (November 16, 2016 at 1:52 am): I did the wrong cut-and-paste from my Clipboard Manager and posted “Patrick Crozier” into the first line by mistake, instead of “Clovis Sangrail”.
I was being interrupted/distracted by my children coming back from school whilst writing my comments, and would have liked to have corrected the mistake after posting the comment, but alas, the edit countdown had expired.
This Samizdata blog really does have a frustratingly kludgy, archaic comments system you know. Yes, it’s improved a bit lately, and I’ve seen worse, but this one is arguably up there with them.
(Cross with myself and this system.)
“For me the Obama “Hope” poster was a sickening statement about the insularity, gullibility and naivety of the American people.”
For civility’s sake, you might note that Obama attracted the votes of approximately 20% of the U.S. population.
I’m fairly sure you have no wish to claim ownership of Gillard or Rudd.
@Slartibartfarst
I’m complimented to be confused with Patrick Crozier, who is one of the consistently interesting and stimulating contributors at Samizdata (they all are, BTW).
Am trying hard to suppress the inflation of the ego.
@bobby b
Point well made and taken. It’s just they do make such a fuss.
I suppose if you want to signal your virtue, you’d better do it good and hard.
Saki is the best. And he volunteered as an infantry private soldier when being a beast of burden was their main duty. And he was a fairly obvious homosexual, when that was a crime in civil and military law*.
Yet he did ordinary line duty, shovelling his share of sh!t and being eventually promoted to sergeant and according to letters well thought of by officers and men.
His is one of the many names at Thiepval that England could ill afford to lose.
And I’m sorry but I like the Baroness best of his characters.
*I’m not going to make the obvious statement that a “poof” in a crowd of private soldiers would have a difficult time, because that’s not my observation of what happens. A 46 year old with fame, money, connections, and education who chose to be a western front private soldier was a MAN. Soldiers tolerate, even cherish, eccentrics as long as it doesn’t get in the way and they pull their weight and a little more. He’s not a poof, he’s OUR poof.
Whoops! I think you may have misconstrued what I was trying to say there. In my haste, I evidently didn’t communicate terribly well. I do apologise. I certainly didn’t mean to give offense at all and slag off 20% or more of the American population of voters. That would be irrational and utterly disgraceful of me and disrespectful, and put me on a par with, for example (say) Clinton slagging off the majority Trump supporters as “unnacceptables” or whatever she called them. Unbelievably arrogant anyway.
No, my view was quite the opposite really.
In 2000, scientists at the National Nuclear Data Centre reported on what looks like an encrypted message in all matter in the universe, readily seen in the 3D plot of potential energy per nucleon. The message looked very hopeful. They described it as “The Cradle of the Nuclides”. The message looked a bit like:
Similarly, I consider America to be the cradle for something wonderful and infinitely precious for humankind. Americans are the Trustees/Custodians of what is arguably the greatest civilising experiment in recorded history. They have come through a baptism of fire, a tremendous ethical and moral struggle and internecine strife and bloodshed, to arrive at a system for peaceful co-existence that actually seems to work.
No doubt it could have all gone very differently, but the wisdom of the signatories to the Constitution prevailed. The experiment has been handed down through Time, for the enablement of universal human freedom and liberty through a fragile religio-political ideology of democracy and human rights based on sound philosophical and rational ethical/Christian principles – e.g., regarding the person and property. This experiment is enshrined in the American Constitution and its Amendments. It is freely available to all the peoples of the world, if they want or choose it.
I gather that the Obama “Hope” picture was created by an independent artist who supported Obama, or thought he was wonderful or something. Various slogans of Obama’s were put at the foot of the picture, slogans that we could suppose then and can see now to have been absolute BS to enthrall the voters who were indeed apparently desperate for some hope and change – so Obama cynically had apparently been giving them what they wanted, to secure their votes. The sickening thing about all that, for me, was the similarity between that action and the moronic compulsory praise of the “Great Leaders” of North Korea and their narcissistic larger-than-life statues which they erected of themselves, for the repressed people to worship and praise.
Sure, if your president turns out to have indeed been (“By their deeds ye shall know them”) a great man – e.g., Abe Lincoln – and one of the giants on whose shoulders we were able to sit, then by all means put up a statue to honour their memory and their lasting great legacy to humankind (e.g., the Lincoln Memorial). But please do it after they have genuinely delivered and don’t start making paintings of a newly-elected hopeful-sounding president before he’s even got started, and who has now reportedly apparently failed to deliver anything except a legacy of mediocrity over his 8-year term.
What concerned me was that the Custodians of that great civilising experiment seemed to have had temporary amnesia about what they had been shown and given by being able to sit on the shoulders of giants and had mistaken promises of intent to be evidence of deliverables.
Finally someone gets it – thank you.
I’m a Kiwi and have no right to lay claim to or ownership of Gillard or Rudd, who I understand are both past Australian Prime Ministers. I gather that Gillard reportedly may have been a bit of a dead loss from the get-go, for Australian progress, and that Kevin Rudd maybe didn’t get around to being able to accomplish much before he was relieved of duty in a rebellious coup, or something, or maybe it was the other way around. Either way, their legacies were apparently relatively unremarkable – in the greater scheme of things – for Australian progress.
However, if I had been an Aussie, and if I had been a voter when they were elected, then I would have accepted my partial responsibility for them being in power however I had voted or not voted. I reckon that, in a democracy, it is true that the electorate tend to get the elected leader they deserve and I would thus not deny my default contributory responsibility for electing what some might belatedly consider in hindsight to have been a regrettable political leader, though I don’t know whether either of those Aussie worthies was regrettable in that sense.
Similarly, as an exiled Pom I felt a great sense of pride and gratitude for the majority of Brits who, in the Brexit referendum, came out and voted to correct their/our egregious mistake (for voting to join the EC in the 70’s at the behest of that deceitful trickster, the incompetent Conservative PM Ted Heath) by decisively rejecting the continuation of being remorselessly sucked-in like sleepwalkers to the undemocratic and Fascist Federal Socialist State of Europe. The Brits chose national sovereignty, democracy, freedom/liberty, limited government, self-governance and freedom from Fascism – which was, after all, what WW2 was all about, and what so many Allies had given their lives for, a mere 70-odd years ago.
Roll on Poppy Day. Lest we forget. And keep your hands in your pockets when standing next to any German bankers or Socialist/Marxist French politicians.
Gillard was born in Wales, and became a political prodigal ‘love child’ of Neil Kinnock.
Shout out to all the appreciators of H.H. Monro – I thought it was just me, except of course for esteemed commenter Clovis Sangrail. The only people I know of who could turn a phrase like Saki were P. G. Wodehouse and Ogden Nash. His dislike of the possessive apostrophe produced some stylings that are unique and immediately-identifiable.
Ashamed to admit that I had no idea of his WW1 service. I shall take an extra dose of Filboid Studge, by way of a penance.
llater,
llamas
“What concerned me was that the Custodians . . . had mistaken promises of intent to be evidence of deliverables.”
In defense of the Hope poster artists, perhaps they came from a time when a Nobel Prize also meant that something had not merely been promised, but accomplished. It’s all been so confusing. 🙂
“I’m a Kiwi . . . ”
Oops. My turn to apologize. Misread something, I think.
“. . . in a democracy, it is true that the electorate tend to get the elected leader they deserve . . . “
Ouch.
“We also delighted in ‘Ruthless Rhymes for Heartless Homes’”
This sounded like it might go down well in our house. It’s free on Kindle, which is nice.
Yes, it was confusing, but I think the prize may have also been undeserved. As I recall, there was some irony about the “Peace Prize” in that it was apparently given after POTUS had bombed some luckless country to Hades, and with civilian “collateral damage”, or something.
I actually had the good fortune to know a Nobel Laureate (he wasn’t then but he is now). He taught Physics at Nottingham. He won it in physiology/medicine for inventing MRI scanners.
It gives me rather a “spin” on it. Did he deserve his gong? Hell yeah! He was also a thoroughly nice fellow (of the Royal Society).
But the Noble Prize for (taking The) Piss… Gods help us! Jimmy Farter, Yasser Marrowfat (“Peas in our time!!!”, Al Gorical (and his hockey stick)?
What a stinking heap of clear-air turdulence. What a veritable emporium complete Bertram Blunts!
I was a great fan of Saki in my youth; in my teenage years I had a paperback copy of his short stories which I completely wore out. I had rather forgotten about him in the ensuing decades; thank you for reminding me of the pleasure of his stories. Beyond their enjoyably dark and generally cynical tone was his sheer craftsmanship: few people wield words as he did. I shall have to revisit them. But I had not known about his novel; thank you also for informing me of that.
And I was also unaware of his WW1 service. That was a different time, wasn’t it?
Saki was one of my less-guilty pleasures when I was younger too.
Seemingly, his death, like his work, was fraught with irony. If I remember correctly, he was out in the trenches at night when one of the tommies lit up a fag, to whom he shouted “put that bloody thing out”, just before a German riflemen put a round in him.
Indeed, I almost adopted the nom-de-plume of “Tobermory” when the internet was the new, wild frontier in the early 21st Century.
Paul Marks: Fritz is one of the Great White Whales of alternate-history buffs. If he had lived longer…
However, he was 56 when he died, so greatly extended life seems doubtful. (Though his father lived till almost 91, and one son to 82, his other son died at 67.)
It is also arguable that the problem was the very long life of his father, Wilhelm I, whose predilections enshrined militarism in German culture of the time for two decades.
Your comments on Willy’s upbringing are interesting; I hadn’t heard much about it. I had the impression that Willy acquired a lot of his character from the endemic militarism promoted by his grandfather. It would be interesting to know how much control Wilhelm I had over Willy’s education. (And what Bismarck did, also.)
If Wilhelm I had died at say age 75, that would be 1872, when Willy was only 13. Fritz would have sixteen years to reshape Germany’s culture and Willy’s character. (And he would have dumped Bismarck.)
Fans of Saki, or indeed those unfamiliar with his work, have 25 days left to listen to Radio 4 Extra’s 3 hours devoted to the man: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b082m09r
Who here can connect Saki’s last words – ‘Put that bloody light out!’ with another over-age sergeant of higher-class origins who nevertheless volunteered to serve in the ranks?
An easy one for fans of UK popular culture d’un certain age. 😆
llater,
llamas
I can do that one.
Two Dad’s Army characters:
Sergeant Wilson, or the Hon. Arthur Wilson, played by John le Mesurier, is of upper class origins
and
ARP Warden Hodges, played by Bill Pertwee, has the catch phrase “put that light out!”
Do I get a special plastic Samizdata kitteh?
The Samizdata fluffy kitteh is all mine. Would you take this stylish plastic replica of Mrs Momesby’s Baby?
Has anyone seen the new Dad’s Army movie? Is it worth me bootlegging it from the UK?
llater,
llamas
@llamas
How could I refuse such a prize?
I have not seen the film but have received several disappointed reports, so cannot recommend making much effort.
Actually under the Weimar Constitution the President could (in emergency situations) give the Chancellor the power to pass laws by decree.
This had happened (for brief periods) before Mr Hitler was made Chancellor – and as leader of the largest party in the German Parliament he was the “natural” choice for Chancellor.
Contrary to Congressman Keith Ellison (a “Bush-Hitler” 9/11 “Truther” who is now likely to be Chairman of the Democratic National Committee in the United States) the fire in the German Parliament was not set by the Nazis – it was indeed set by a Communist. Both the Nazis and the Marxists had nothing but contempt for “capitalist legality”.
Under either the Rule of Law was going to die – and the Weimar State had already made great strides in this direction long before Hitler.
For example trial by jury was abolished by the Weimar Republic – long before Mr Hitler came to power.
The German elite (even before the First World War) did not really believe in the Rule of Law anymore – not in the limited government sense.
They believed in the “Social Rule of Law” (that is actually written into the Weimar Constitution) – i.e. unlimited and arbitrary statism. As F.A. Hayek pointed out “social” is a “weasel word” like the animal it sucks out the contents of an egg (a concept) leaving the outer shell.
In a modern state the courts (and so on) continue to exist – but they lose their meaning (their moral content). Indeed they become instruments of evil – not limitations on statistism.
And the “intellectuals” in Britain (the people “Saki” attacked) believed in the same thing.
The Fabians and the “advanced” members of the Liberal and the Conservative parties in Britain had nothing but contempt for the “reactionary” principles of the Rule of Law of Dicey and so on.
Germany was tactically defeated in World War One – and strategically defeated in World War Two, but the evil IDEAS of such things as moral relativism, historicism and determinism remained active in the universities of the West – and in the people “educated” in this environment.
The Fascists and Nazis may have the last laugh on us. They may have “lost the war – but won the peace”.
For example if Harold Prichard or Sir William David Ross arrived at Oxford today – would they get positions as Professors of Philosophy?
Most likely the only positions they (or C.S. “Abolition of Man” Lewis or Tolkien) could get at most modern universities would be cleaning the toilets.
The totalitarians may well win in the end – at least till society completely collapses and there is a new Dark Age.
Paul, I find it interesting that you subscribe to the theory that the Reichstag fire was not set by the Nazis, but rather by the communists. That’s certainly the theory advanced by the Nazis (and immediately used by them to solidify their hold on power by abolishing freedom of speech and confidentiality of the mail and telephone calls, and by giving the police unrestricted powers of search, confiscation and arrest), and was commonly accepted at the time. But it is clearly not accepted by Sebastian Haffner in his book “Defying Hitler“, and he lived through that era. Personally, I find the theory that it was a “false flag” operation carried out by the Nazis to discredit and destroy their enemies, the communists, to be more persuasive. (And I really don’t care what Keith Ellison may think about the matter!)
Laird (November 18, 2016 at 5:22 pm), it is often thought that the half-witted van der Lubbe was in some way used by the Nazis. That all the communists charged, except van der Lubbe, were wholly uninvolved is agreed by absolutely everyone, I think – after all, even the Nazi court ended up acquitting them. It is also thought the Nazis arranged for the incompetent van der Lubbe to get a lot of help in turning his petty arson attempt into a first-rate conflagration. But I think it is generally agreed that van der Lubbe was a genuine communist, that he planned to start the fire (with our without knowledge of and/or prompting from some Nazi agent provocateur), that he acted accordingly (with or without secret help to make the blaze catch faster), and that he remained personally convinced up to his execution that he alone started the fire. There are several pointers to suggest the Nazis had some kind of prior knowledge or involvement but I’m not sure this has been indisputably proved. Their cynical exploitation of the event is of course well attested. But my impression (possibly out of date if there has been recent research) is that Stalin’s murder of Kirov is a good deal more established than exactly how the Nazis were involved in the fire. Of course, at that early and uncertain stage of their rule, it would have been far more carefully concealed than later deeds.
Niall, van der Lubbe was certainly there, and was caught, confessed, convicted and executed for it, but as you say he was a half-wit and probably incapable of pulling it off by himself. I still subscribe to the “false flag” theory, with him as a convenient patsy, but I suppose we’ll never know for certain.