The Threat of Paramilitaries
Beware On a fall day in New England a friend and survivor of the Bosnian genocide turned to me and said, "Always beware of paramilitaries. That's where it starts." As I thought about how true that was across the genocides that I was studying, I thought I should add "state sanctioned". Mass atrocity crimes are facilitated by paramilitary organizations that receive the "green light" from those in power. Paramilitaries operate outside the law and avoid oversight or constraint. It is more likely to occur in places where democracy is weak or there is a state legitimacy crisis.
A History of Extra-Legal Paramilitaries There is a long and twisted history of armed paramilitary vigilantes in the U.S. from the KKK to, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center, an estimated 169 private groups operating today. These groups exist outside state-sanctioned militias (ie: National Guard) and are often associated with anti-government and often extremist views. They find legitimacy in part by tapping into traditional symbols of contested history such as the Confederate battle flag.
2nd Amendment I am a New Englander. I actually look forward to Patriot's Day every April that remembers the battles of Lexington and Concord fought by minutemen militias against British tyranny. Throughout the American Revolution colonial militias were a key supplemental force for the Continental Army. At the nation's founding they had been crucial for each colony's defense. When the Second Amendment was codified, it recognized "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". The amendment was crucial for new states to give up some of their autonomy to agree to join and form the United States. The agreement allowed states and their governors to oversee and maintain their defense force while joining a federal state. As in any good democracy the meaning of the amendment continues to be debated. When it became part of the Constitution, smooth bore muskets were prevalent, but not the more expensive rifle. In the lasty twenty or so years the Supreme Court has increasingly ruled that individual gun ownership, with little regulation, is appropriate. Training to be a soldier in the 1980s but not taking my commission, I believe that weapons of war designed to inflict mass destruction belong in the hands of the professional national armed services. Guns continue to proliferate in our society in staggering ways that could never have been anticipated by the Founders. We continue to debate the social cost we are willing to spend.
Compare and Contrast As guns become more part of our daily lives one argument that doesn't hold true is the often repeated political (and marketing slogan) that the first thing the Nazis did was to take away the peoples' arms. In a false comparison, the inference is to Patriot's Day, but has little relevance to what happened in Germany. The truth is a bit more muddled and unnerving.
The Germany Army, Paramilitaries, and Nazis President Hindenburg named Hitler as German Chancellor in 1933 after listening to the advice of a group of anti-democratic conservate politicians who convinced him to give Hitler a chance. Since being imprisoned for treason after the failed comical Munich Putsch, Hitler wrote his fictional biography and political self-pitying rant Mein Kampf (My Struggle) in which he outlined a new political strategy. He would get power by working within the system not by trying to overthrow it. It almost didn't work, until the Great Depression, para-militarized pressure, and political back door maneuverings helped. That is where the guns come in.
Kurt von Schleicher was a Major General in the Reichswehr (German Army after World War I). He was scheming to modernize the army by cutting social spending. He feared, with an army of only 100,000 men, that Germans would lose their identities (manliness) if they did not have mandatory military training. He was also scheming for power. In 1930, thinking that Hitler's paramilitary SA (“Brownshirts”) could fill the void, he befriended Ernst Röhm, the SA chief of staff. Schleicher gave the SA access to army depots and arsenals. The two agreed that in a crisis (war or a Communist coup) the SA would come under command of the Reichswehr. Like everyone else, Schleicher mistakenly underestimated the threat of Hitler and the Nazis and thought he could use them for his own ambitions.
The SA were interested in antisemitism, violence, cruelty, and ending democracy. With guns now plentiful they could terrorize Hitler's opponents. It was a constant problem for Hitler. He loved the violence and intimidation tactics of the SA but was frequently put on the defensive when other leaders of society (especially the police, courts, and the Army) pushed back. In a moment of political clarity, then Chancellor Brüning was working against Schleicher and convinced Hindenburg to ban the SA and SS. To no one's surprise, street violence dropped dramatically and confidence in government stabilized briefly. It is difficult for violence and democracy to coexist.
And then, Schleicher secretly met with Hitler on May 8, 1932. If Hitler supported him, Schleicher would convince Hindenburg to dismiss Brüning, create a new government, and lift the ban on the SA and SS (Blackshirts). And so, Schleicher convinced Hindenburg to ask for Brüning’s resignation. A puppet of Schleicher was named chancellor and the ban on the SA and SS was lifted. Hitler would now often rally the SA to flood the streets as he tried to ramp up the pressure. His goal was to make violence the norm so that he could convince people that only he could stop it, only he could bring back "law and order".
Warnings Leaders in the German Weimar Republic actively worked with unregulated right-wing paramilitaries and the Army gave them weapons. There had been a long tradition of armed paramilitarism in Germany from the time of Napoleon's occupation in the 19th century through the post World War I era in the early 20th century. These military and paramilitary formations were often used to suppress revolt and keep a government (whether left or right) in power. Symbols and badges were interchangeable, such as the Death's Head symbol of the Prussian Hussars becoming the symbol of Hitler's SS. Little of this reflects the American experience whose militias were formed to protect, not destroy, communities.
My Turn Once when I was presenting at a U.S. military base during the Days of Remembrance of the Holocaust, a soldier asked, with obvious concern, "What is the difference between a patriot and a nationalist?" A patriot is someone who examines their country's history without fear with the goal of improving its ideals. A nationalist is someone who wants to rewrite history, exclude those who they believe do not belong, and accept violence as a means to an end.
I'll sight only two of many obvious warning signs to the growing influence and sanctioning of extra-legal paramilitaries in the U.S.: Amongst the January 6, 2021, rioters and attackers of the Capitol were paramilitaries like the Proud Boys, Oath Keepers, Three Percenters and more, who all received presidential pardons. ICE is claiming the role of law enforcement, blurring the lines between their behavior and the police. They act outside the normal restraints and rules while well-regulated militias (professional armed services) are being coopted into the mission. Viewing pictures of German police on the parameters of SA public acts of brutality do strike a frightening, echoing chord from 1933. As a well-armed, government sanctioned and financed paramilitary, ICE has been setting up extra legal camps and disappearing people. I won't go further for now.
Paramilitaries have skirted the law in the past and inflicted harm on U.S. citizens. President Grant established the Department of Justice to fight the KKK and succeeded, at first. It is a fine line between defense and vigilante behavior.
When comparing ourselves to Nazi Germany it is important to point out that our system and experiences are different. Significantly, this applies to our professional armed forces. Unlike Germany, whose officers swore an oath of loyalty to the person of the Presidency, our leaders swear an oath to the Constitution. The military is designed, and its values are ingrained, to protect us from enemies foreign or domestic, and follow duly elected public officials. It is crucial to push back against those who wish to blur these lines or change the role from defense to oppression. It is alarming how much our political leadership is working to undermine and shift the mission of our armed forces. It is a troubling warning sign if militia symbols, or symbols from anti-democratic history become acceptable.
I was alarmed this week when the U.S. Coast Guard lowered the threat level of hate symbols like the Nazi swastika, the so-called Confederate flag, and the noose. And then, I was encouraged when Admiral Lunday asserted the next day that these symbols of hate, treason, and antidemocracy would continue to be banned in the service. We are a democracy continually wrestling with its ideals and leadership matters. We need to be constantly reminded of what our democratic ideals are, support those who bravely clarify when the line is blurring. We must realize that we too are leaders standing in defense of a more just Republic not one that justifies violence for the sake of power.
