tag:www.thedonovan.com,2012://1/tag:www.thedonovan.com,2009://1.10366- 2012-03-24T15:22:44Z Comments for Arbeit Macht Frei - a short history We're the Military and Airpower Guys of Jonah Goldberg of National Review Online + a stray we found wandering around looking lost. All original material JHD, BHD, JR, WT, and KA 2003-2010 Movable Type 4.12 tag:www.thedonovan.com,2009://1.10366 2009-02-05T13:31:49Z 2009-02-05T17:38:25Z Arbeit Macht Frei - a short history The Armorer http://www.thedonovan.com

Castle Denizen Boquisucio availed himself of his little-used posting privileges and put up a post yesterday about the H.R. 645. A.K.A.: National Emergency Centers Establishment Act 0f 2009, in which he posits a possible dark intention for referenced facilities, because of an open-ended 4th purpose.

Of course, it could also mean a Gitmo-style facility, too.  Or a "gotta sort 'em before we let 'em out refugee center," such as we turned Fort Chaffee, Arkansas into for the Mariel Boat Lift refugees, a group we knew to contain a not insignificant number of criminals that Castro took the opportunity to dump on us.

As ever, *any* facility like this *could* be turned to dark purposes.  Just look at the history of the German death camps.  Unlike the big death factories were built during the war, most camps didn't start out that way.  They simply morbidly, in fits and starts,  morphed that way as the war progressed.

The impetus for this bill is most likely Katrina-style events, where it was a real struggle to get people out of the area and into places with shelter, food, and basic amenities.  I know, I was involved locally with organizing the reciept of Katrina-displaced families here into the Leavenworth area.  Having done Military Support to the Civil Authority planning before, I can appreciate the requirement that underlies this bill.  One of our nightmare scenarios was a January New Madrid earthquake - your sheltering requirements are vast and immediate in the cold weather, for example.  Having facilities that can receive large numbers of people in a short period of time could be very useful - of course, Boq wasn't disputing that, he was just pointing out that the 4th purpose was open-ended enough that you can make it fit many, many things. 

Just as we "re-purposed" the camps at the end of the war, turning them into "displaced persons" camps, holding the newly-freed slave laborers of the 3rd Reich at places like Dachau until arrangements for repatriation could be made.  Just as the German government took military installations that the US Army had turned back during the 90's and used them to house refugees from East Germany and Eastern Europe after the Wall came down.

In the comments to the post, Josh observed:
I thought it was just Auschwitz that had that sign over the gate, was it all of them? Either way, I heard that at Auschwitz, the prisoners built the sign themselves, and used the opportunity to mount the B in "ARBEIT" upside-down, which was, according to the story, a sign of danger, in an attempt to warn the newly-arrived, who were often under mistaken impressions about the nature of the camp.

I thought a brief history of "Arbeit Macht Frei" would be interesting to put up.

The term first appears in Germany as the title of an 1872 novel by Lorenz Diefenbach.  Diefenbach was a German Nationalist, which ideology formed a large component of Hitlerian Natiional Socialism, hence the appeal of the phrase to the people who built and ran the Konzentrationlagern.

However, the first use of the phrase in a governmental context actually came during the Weimar Republic, when it was used as a slogan for promoting their public works programs, designed to lift Germany out of the Depression.  In an attempt to get the German unemployed out of the cities where there was no work and into the countryside building roads, bridges, etc, just as the CCC and WPA projects were intended for the US during the same era.  The fact that it had the concomitant effect for local officialdom of breaking up and scattering out the unemployed so they wouldn't sit around and conspire revolution. 

The slogan appears at several of the preserved camps today, and is reported to have been placed at many of the now-dismantled camps as well, under an order promulgated by then-SS Gruppenführer Theodore Eicke when he was Inspector of the camps.

The slogans exist today at Dachau, Theresienstadt, Sachsenhausen and, of course, Auschwitz.

Now, is that what I think the intent of the bill is?  No. 

But can it happen here if we aren't vigilant?

Of course.  It can, and has, within living memory - if certainly not to the extreme reached by the Nazis.

Manzanar.

]]> tag:www.thedonovan.com,2009://1.10366-comment:84024 Comment from Grumpy on 2009-02-08 Grumpy
You took the courage to walk a journey with a Very Grumpy Old Vet. We don't need to agree on everything. The goal is not to be disagreeable.

Paragraph #2 Purely from a personal perspective, there appears to have been some confusion on my part. In your view, you look at the German populace and the Nazis, but you see a clean crisp line separating the two. There are some of the older vets will have a harder time seeing that very same line as clean and crisp, Let's just say the line gets real fuzzy. This causes some of us to just step back. You write, "I do defend the inaction of the German  populace at large, but I'm certainly NOT defending the actions of the Nazis on any grounds!

Paragraph #3 answers issues Paragraph #4, rest, no problems.

Josh, Thank you, for the journey!

]]> 2009-02-08T06:33:05Z 2009-02-08T06:33:05Z tag:www.thedonovan.com,2009://1.10366-comment:84023 Comment from Josh on 2009-02-07 Josh [Grumpy]Josh, I was particularly writing to RRM.
Err, I was asking John, not you. Sorry for the confusion.

[Grumpy]Josh, When I was reading your writing, you keep defending many of the actions of the people at the times of the Nazis. You're just talking with a dumb vet, me. You speak of a "completely twisted version of the same legitimate practice,...", please describe the use of "same legitimate practice". What are the "Standardized International Rules of Engagement for this Legitimate Process?"
Again, sorry for the confusion...I said that in response to John's post:
[John]I'm not sure I'm making my point clearly. We talking about the legal niceties, and the whole "boiling a frog" thing. The German government essentially withdrew German citizenship from the Jews, essentially branding them foreigners. They rounded up the Gypsys in Germany too, migratory clans as they are. And when they included parts of conquered territory into the Greater German Reich...
I was saying that, while I can see where he's coming from, I still don't think that it's valid. I do defend the inaction of the German populace at large, but I'm certainly NOT defending the actions of the Nazis on any grounds!

To answer your question though, the "legitimate practice" would have been the Germans creating internment camps (where all human rights are respected) and interning all citizens of Allied nations (U.K., France, Holland, Belgium etc at first, plus U.S. and Russia later)...preferably shipping them to their home countries in exchange for receiving German citizens from abroad. As they conquered France, any French citizens still interned would have to be released, as with Belgium and Holland.

[Grumpy]Before we get to my views on this subject, there are some serious things to discuss. You talk about "foreigners" and "conflict of interest". What is the basic requirement for both of these things? You must be a "PERSON" to qualify. The practice done by the Nazis removed any of the validity of the concept. As was noted earlier in this thread, during that time many people who feared for their lives, they didn't want to die. But how about the many of the Soldiers, Resistance Fighters and Underground Members wanted to die? But they still fought, in whatever way they could. As we, yes. WE, look at this we must remember, these people were in the pens, like cattle awaiting slaughter.
I'm not really sure what your point is...I haven't said anything in conflict with what you're saying. I agree entirely.

[Grumpy]There is a critically important question, what does it mean for us to be at war? How do we as a Nation transition from peace to a Nation at War? This is the most important question we can ask. We have the "War Powers Act of 1973". I believe we should consider repealing this Act. I believe the best idea is going back to the US Constitutional Declaration of War. I am not talking about a reinstitution of the draft. I am talking about the American Citizenry, each member finds their place of sacrifice. The idea of the military going to war, the rest of us, should go shopping, WRONG. We all go to war, in our own way.
This is actually one thing I have been talking about for years now. America needs to re-evaluate the way it approaches armed conflict. I don't like seeing the President unilaterally send the military off to war, but the Congress has derelicted its duty for 60 years now. The Constitution very clearly places the responsibility of declarations of war in the hands of Congress, and yet they absolutely refuse to issue a declaration of war under any circumstances, ever. Thus we are forced into a state of half-assed quasi-war, particularly in the cases of Korea and Vietnam, which simply gets people killed unnecessarily. The problem is, how do we get Congress to do there job? It's not just one person or even a set of people, it's a mentality that has taken over Congress. I have no idea how to deal with it. You can't go vote for senators and representatives who run on platforms of "I will declare war if necessary", there are no such people. The entire concept of a declaration of war as a valid action by Congress has simply VANISHED from American federal politics. So I don't really know what to DO about this.

Now if you're talking about national mobilization, like we did during WWII where the government took control of industry and resources, rationing things and forcing all manufacturers to switch to building war materiel...I don't know, I think that has its place for certain conflicts with a vast scope like WWII, but I don't think that any conflicts since then have really merited that. It certainly should be an option for the future, just in case we NEED it.
]]> 2009-02-08T03:55:54Z 2009-02-08T03:55:54Z tag:www.thedonovan.com,2009://1.10366-comment:84022 Comment from Grumpy on 2009-02-07 Grumpy
Josh, When I was reading your writing, you keep defending many of the actions of the people at the times of the Nazis. You're just talking with a dumb vet, me. You speak of a "completely twisted version of the same legitimate practice,...", please describe the use of "same legitimate practice". What are the "Standardized International Rules of Engagement for this Legitimate Process?"

Before we get to my views on this subject, there are some serious things to discuss. You talk about "foreigners" and "conflict of interest". What is the basic requirement for both of these things? You must be a "PERSON" to qualify. The practice done by the Nazis removed any of the validity of the concept.   As was noted earlier in this thread, during that time many people who feared for their lives, they didn't want to die. But how about the many of the Soldiers, Resistance Fighters and Underground Members wanted to die? But they still fought, in whatever way  they could. As we, yes. WE, look at this we must remember, these people were in the pens, like cattle awaiting slaughter.

Josh, I want to focus on the last section of the last sentence of your post, 6 Feb 2009, 11:22PM. "...whose homeland you are at war with...." Josh, this is not only about Germany but also about the United States. There is a critically important question, what does it mean for us to be at war? How do we as a Nation transition from peace to a Nation at War? This is the most important question we can ask. We have the "War Powers Act of 1973". I believe we should consider repealing this Act. I believe the best idea is going back to the US Constitutional Declaration of War. I am not talking about a reinstitution of the draft. I am talking about the American Citizenry, each member finds their place of sacrifice. The idea of the military going to war, the rest of us, should go shopping, WRONG. We all go to war, in our own way.]]> 2009-02-08T03:26:24Z 2009-02-08T03:26:24Z tag:www.thedonovan.com,2009://1.10366-comment:84005 Comment from Josh on 2009-02-06 Josh
I wasn't particularly defending Manzanar per se, but I do defend the practice of interning citizens of an enemy nation during wartime (preferably with the intention of repatriation), recognizing that Manzanar went unconscionably beyond this.

As for the German concentration camps, I see how, from a legal standpoint, you could make a solid argument that they were also a completely twisted version of the same legitimate practice, because they were treating those interned as foreigners anyway...but I would point out that it doesn't even make for a valid (if flimsy) legal pretext, because even if the Jews/Gypsies/whatever actually were genuinely "foreigners", they're still not citizens of the enemy nations, and so Germany still wouldn't have had any grounds to intern them...because it's not about interning foreigners for NOT being Germans, it's about interning people who have a "conflict of interest", that is, whose homeland you are at war with.
]]> 2009-02-07T05:22:49Z 2009-02-07T05:22:49Z tag:www.thedonovan.com,2009://1.10366-comment:83996 Comment from Grumpy on 2009-02-06 Grumpy
Any program such as this would be based on evidence or information. Mike, since you are such a GREAT LEADER, you'll show us how to do it, you go first. The first thing is to gather all forensic evidence. Then they start and check all your records, this would be paper and virtual (cyber and telephonic.) Do you feel a little exposed? But we have only begun. By the time they finish, they come up to you and say, "We found a pimple on your tonsils and we found it the long way."

People will learn a great deal over time, but there should be a "Reasons and Basis" component to the documents. Absolutely NO SECRECY in this type of internment. This will prevent the "backtracking and compelling" anyone from going down the wrong path. Politics should be kept out of it.

Question, will we ever meet these objectives? My answer is no, but we should still strive for it. You receive a letter or a visit and you are ordered to a specified internment camp, What is your response?

Thank you, for some thought provoking questions. You're a Great Leader, Mike, you sit a little funny, but you're still a Great Leader. Everybody who goes through the procedure that found pimple on your tonsils, they all sit a little funny.]]> 2009-02-06T22:35:54Z 2009-02-06T22:35:54Z tag:www.thedonovan.com,2009://1.10366-comment:83955 Comment from RetRsvMike on 2009-02-06 RetRsvMike
Foreign Nationals, and (to some extent) those who hold dual allegiance to another sovereign nation, should be repatriated upon a declaration of war, else they should be interned in the interior (for their and our own protection).  to do less is to walk away from our responsibility to protect the civilian populace of BOTH countries from the vagaries of a state of war.

and John and Josh, i am in complete agreement with you both, in that what happened in Nazi Germany was a complete bastardization of a fairly straight forward, rational, and needful concept.

to that end, i actually happen to encourage EXTENSIVE dialogue regarding the House Resolution that came up, simply in order to get EVERYBODY on record as to PRECISELY what does and does not constitute grounds for internment.  i would also like it on the record what exactly Homeland Security's involvement in it will be, as opposed to what DoD will get stuck with, so that LATER, when DoD says "this is the correct way to do it.." someone else can't backtrack and compel DoD down the wrong path....

(hmm, isn't there a Lessons Learned somewhere regarding Fort Dix NJ, the INS, and the Kosovars, circa 2000??  if not, should be)
]]> 2009-02-06T15:18:58Z 2009-02-06T15:18:58Z tag:www.thedonovan.com,2009://1.10366-comment:83951 Comment from RetRsvMike on 2009-02-06 RetRsvMike
Foreign Nationals, and (to some extent) those who hold dual allegience to another sovereign nation, should be
]]> 2009-02-06T13:38:32Z 2009-02-06T13:38:32Z tag:www.thedonovan.com,2009://1.10366-comment:83948 Comment from John of Argghhh! on 2009-02-06 John of Argghhh! http://www.thedonovan.com
And while you're defending Manzanar - I'm not attacking it as directly as you're defending it - or at least I perceive you to be defending it.

I'm pointing out that it was used as a concentration camp (the idea orginally coming out of the French Revolution and being expanded by the British during the Boer War (and, lets face it, our Reservation system were similar in intent) and one that found native-born US citizens put into it purely because they belonged to a social group held in suspicion by the state security apparatus, enabled by a citizenry that was understandably passive (and largely ignorant of) the injustice.

Periods of war and societal distress distort the warp and woof of the social fabric - a process both helped and hindered by a vocal public, depending on where you sit at the table.

]]> 2009-02-06T12:34:40Z 2009-02-06T12:34:40Z tag:www.thedonovan.com,2009://1.10366-comment:83939 Comment from Josh on 2009-02-05 Josh While your point applies, RRM, I would point out that many of your quals for being interned were applied by the Germans to the Jews. And Gypsys, etc.

How many of those "interned" by the Nazis were actually citizens of Allied nations?  The Jews were mostly citizens of Germany and the countries that were invaded (and once you invade a country, the citizens are no longer eligible to be interned of course, so even French Jews wouldn't fit the bill here).  I'm not even sure if Gypsies, at the time, were even considered to have citizenship, but they certainly wouldn't have had American or Commonwealth citizenship...maybe a few Russian ones, possibly, but I doubt it.  Under RRM's [perfectly acceptable] reasoning, Americans, Commonwealth citizens, and Russians living in Germany and the invaded nations would have been eligible to be interned (and preferably sent back home, with reciprocal repatriation of Axis citizens).

The point isn't "We're locking you up because you [personally] are the enemy".  The point is "We're locking you up because XYZ state is the enemy, and you are a citizen of XYZ".

Of course, this all gets terribly muddied when you stop talking about wars and start trying to apply this to the sorts of conflicts we have at the moment, which are certainly not wars, regardless of the sloganeering.
]]> 2009-02-06T05:56:26Z 2009-02-06T05:56:26Z tag:www.thedonovan.com,2009://1.10366-comment:83938 Comment from Grumpy on 2009-02-05 Grumpy
John writes, ...*intent* matters, and *intent* can morph over time."

I would add, *intent* does not age very well. We should do our home work before the fact, not after. There is a time, when the size and type of our arsenal will not matter. We will begin to find the only operational weapon we really have resides between our ears.

We must realize we live in a global village.]]> 2009-02-06T04:51:21Z 2009-02-06T04:51:21Z tag:www.thedonovan.com,2009://1.10366-comment:83936 Comment from John of Argghhh! on 2009-02-05 John of Argghhh! http://www.thedonovan.com While your point applies, RRM, I would point out that many of your quals for being interned were applied by the Germans to the Jews.  And Gypsys, etc.

Not meaning to invalidate your point, so much as point out that... *intent* matters, and *intent* can morph over time.

 

 

]]> 2009-02-05T23:32:55Z 2009-02-05T23:32:55Z tag:www.thedonovan.com,2009://1.10366-comment:83928 Comment from RetRsvMike on 2009-02-05 RetRsvMike
on the topic of Manzanar...   (following opinion is solely my own opinion on the topic, does not reflect the views of {insert standard disclaimers})..

so, what exactly DO you do with resident aliens of a foreign power which is in a declared state of war with one's own nation??...

well, to the extent that people of Japanese NATIONALITY, or individuals holding DUAL CITIZENSHIP, it is perfectly lawful and expected that competent national authority direct the internment of such persons in such place and for such duration as the conflict continues, unless sooner re-patriated to their nation of origin, under humane conditions as generally arranged for transfer of prisoners (generally through the good offices of an international agency acting as a Protecting Power under auspices of international treaty)

to the extent that SOME individuals were 100% citizens of the US of A, regardless of their cultural heritage, and such of those as were interned, that is a HORRENDOUS mis-application of the perfectly valid concept.

(and lest we forget, the Japanese aspects represent (i think) less than half of the total numbers interned, with the rest composed of German, Italian, or other Axis power nationality or cultural heritage)
]]> 2009-02-05T20:06:04Z 2009-02-05T20:06:04Z tag:www.thedonovan.com,2009://1.10366-comment:83927 Comment from Grumpy on 2009-02-05 Grumpy
You make a good point, WE, as a Nation, are at pivotal point in time. You write, "Because, well, it *can* happen here unless we refuse to let it happen here." But what does this mean? 

The first thing is to look at history and hopefully, not repeat the bad portions of it. Lets go back to the "Laws of Motion" by Sir Isaac Newton. I may not have everything perfectly, but I think I'm close enough for the intent of this blog. I believe it is the second and third laws relative to this matter. "2. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. 3. A body in motion tends to stay in motion and a body at rest tends to stay at rest."  I found that these two laws have extrapolations into the interpersonal relationship world.

What was the first mistake the Nazi leadership made in dealing with the Jewish People? The first thing they did was to give them a non-human status. Everything they did at the time was seen as how you would treat any farm animal. The Nazi leadership made its second mistake when it believed the Jewish people would become the animals the Nazis had envisioned. They became a disciplined people. There is an saying, what goes around, comes around.

As to John's insight, if we don't prevent it, we are guilty of creating terrorists, that we must fight. We, as a Nation, need to understand your challenge and "refuse to to let it happen here."

Mike, you make a good point about having concentration camps here and people knowing about them. You can think it, but do not ASS-U-ME it!

Grumpy]]> 2009-02-05T19:31:42Z 2009-02-05T19:31:42Z tag:www.thedonovan.com,2009://1.10366-comment:83924 Comment from RetRsvMike on 2009-02-05 RetRsvMike
you plop one these puppies down on a piece of turf, and there ain't nobody for miles around who AIN'T gonna know about it.  they're just that damn big and bulky.
]]> 2009-02-05T19:22:53Z 2009-02-05T19:22:53Z tag:www.thedonovan.com,2009://1.10366-comment:83914 Comment from John of Argghhh! on 2009-02-05 John of Argghhh! http://www.thedonovan.com
Because, well, it *can* happen here unless we refuse to let it happen here.]]> 2009-02-05T17:19:09Z 2009-02-05T17:19:09Z tag:www.thedonovan.com,2009://1.10366-comment:83912 Comment from Boquisucio on 2009-02-05 Boquisucio
On this subject at hand, I recognize the importance of having reception centers for tending to the needs of suddently displaced masses of American Citizens.  God Forbids, there's a terrorist attack, which leaves... let's say Saint Louis into a smouldering radioactive wasteland.  My guess, is that Forts Leavenworth/Leonardwood could easily become gigantic "Homeless Shelters".  Government resources would be well spent, to confront scenarios like these.

However by their nature, Military Bases are perfect stages for controlling the behavior of a "petulant" populace.  Once built, these "Homeless Shelters" can just as easily become holding pens for those needing "Behaviour Modification".  When you mix such infrastructure (or the possibility thereof), with Clause 4, my Libertarian sensibilities makes me do a double take.
]]> 2009-02-05T17:14:54Z 2009-02-05T17:14:54Z tag:www.thedonovan.com,2009://1.10366-comment:83911 Comment from RetRsvMike on 2009-02-05 RetRsvMike

]]> 2009-02-05T17:14:37Z 2009-02-05T17:14:37Z tag:www.thedonovan.com,2009://1.10366-comment:83910 Comment from RetRsvMike on 2009-02-05 RetRsvMike
EPW facility plan is the baseline for the blueprint at a nominal capacity of 4k, but that design is contingent on a docile compliant population of EPW, in a secured Theater Rear (COMMZ) or CONUS location.

double the capacity by putting up additional lodging and/or partitioning of compounds based on family units, and stuff more in.

overhead remains the same.

grocery requirements go up maybe an additional 70%.

waste disposal and water table requirements are trickier, but (since i'm certain they would only ask someone who is qualified to answer the question for where to site the place), the place would ONLY be built somewhere that could support worst case requirements in the first place.  (yeah, right..).
]]> 2009-02-05T17:11:32Z 2009-02-05T17:11:32Z tag:www.thedonovan.com,2009://1.10366-comment:83909 Comment from John of Argghhh! on 2009-02-05 John of Argghhh! http://www.thedonovan.com
The original intent was ot gather all the Jews together and ship 'em out elsewhere, Madagascar being an oft-mentioned destination, but before and during the early stages of the war, the French, Brits, and Americans weren't too keen on being the recipients of large numbers of european Jews.  

The whole run-up to the Holocaust was a series of roads not taken.]]> 2009-02-05T17:07:39Z 2009-02-05T17:07:39Z tag:www.thedonovan.com,2009://1.10366-comment:83907 Comment from Argent on 2009-02-05 Argent http://www.aaronpoeze.com/
It's not through the 'wiring' and other abuses that a society is controlled but rather the fear of them.  I would look to Saddam's past for good examples not Auschwitz.  The holocaust was different and required such effort because they were not trying to control the Jews, but rather eliminate them.






]]> 2009-02-05T16:49:58Z 2009-02-05T16:49:58Z tag:www.thedonovan.com,2009://1.10366-comment:83906 Comment from John of Argghhh! on 2009-02-05 John of Argghhh! http://www.thedonovan.com Well, remember, I don't think the real intent here is for a hostile population, but a DP population. 2009-02-05T16:05:37Z 2009-02-05T16:05:37Z tag:www.thedonovan.com,2009://1.10366-comment:83903 Comment from RetRsvMike on 2009-02-05 RetRsvMike
all now collectively under the catch-all term "I/R"

for a nominal population of 4,000 "inside the wire", plan on a minimum of $16M Bill of Materials, stuff it into 600 CONEXs (40 footers, not 20 footers", and a construction battalion for 30 days labor.

running the joint takes an MP I/R battalion HHC for the "inside" mission, plus additional MP Guard or MP Combat Support Companies (as required for the "look outward from the wire mission), plus an MP Escort Guard Company for the transit piece from collection point to facility.  count up all the green suit noses plus the population of guests being accomodated, and your talking about providing life support for a Division.  so now, give me a DISCOM equivalent log base in support of it, but configure it with COSCOM assets for "push" logistics, vice the "pull" version (cuz i ain't got a light/medium truck battalion assigned to me to go run for groceries).  tell me how much of log tail you'll provide, and THEN i'll tell you how big a footprint i'm going to need for the whole magilla.

i'm just saying i "could" do it for ya, not saying i "would"...
]]> 2009-02-05T15:28:32Z 2009-02-05T15:28:32Z