Executive Intelligence Review

Subscribe to EIR

This article appeared in the January 8, 1999 issue of Executive Intelligence Review.

Al Gore and Adolf Hitler

by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.

December 22, 1998

The currently ongoing coup d'état, aimed to bring Vice-President Al Gore quickly into the U.S. Presidency, was proposed publicly, by former U.S. Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger, in the October 15 London Daily Telegraph. More recently, in the December 15 edition of the Wall Street Journal, former Nixon aide Clay T. Whitehead, described that type of secret committee which Kissinger was proposing for a Gore coup d'état, as it had operated inside the Nixon administration. This was, in fact, the so-called "Watergate" operation which Kissinger coordinated under Vice-President Ford.

Whitehead's version of Kissinger's proposals, then and now, coincides exactly with a series of coordinated actions, which have been operating within the Clinton Administration, largely behind President Clinton's back. These operations, centered around Vice-President Al Gore, have been pushed as a plan of action for preparing the ouster of the President.

Neither of these two insider "secret committees," neither that which operated against Nixon under Kissinger, nor the not-so-secret "national security" cabal now aligned against Clinton, behind Gore, is really original. As the writer Plutarch would have described it, there is an ominous parallel between the presently attempted coup d'état against President Clinton, and the way in which the government of Germany's Chancellor Kurt von Schleicher was overthrown, on January 28, 1933, by Hjalmar Schacht and London-backed forces inside the German parliament, to hustle Adolf Hitler into power.

To see the connection clearly, first consider crucial highlights of the process through which a then-otherwise unelectable candidate Hitler was brought into the Chancellorship, on January 30, 1933, and to dictatorial power on February 28, less than one month later. The same London-centered, Anglo-American financier interests, now represented by Prime Minister Tony Blair, which brought the then virtually unelectable Hitler to power in Germany, are behind the use of a rabid Anglophile, the virtually unelectable Presidential candidate Al Gore, in the effort to run a parliamentary coup d'état now, against Clinton, as against von Schleicher earlier.

Both the motive and the method behind these coup d'états are so nearly identical, not only in astonishing fineness of certain details, but in crucial strategic implications, as to scare the pants off any U.S. citizen still capable of honest thinking.

It is time for us all to say, "Never again!" and let Al Gore serve out the remainder of his term, in that quiet and obscurity which our nation's security interest demands for him.

Schacht and Hitler

If we examine both matters in their crucial, political-economic setting, there is a precise parallel between the British Commonwealth-directed launching of the "Whitewatergate" targetting of President Bill Clinton, by the failed re-election campaign of President George Bush, during 1992, and the earlier process leading to Hitler's legal coup d'état of January 28-February 28, 1933. The economic issues, in both cases, are defined most sharply, by comparing the global crisis-developments which burst into the open during October 1997, with the collapse of Germany's discredited Social-Democratic government and party, in the aftermath of the 1929 U.S. stock-market panic.

The attempt of the Social-Democratic government to find a "Third Way" between the German population and maddened international bankers, led to the fall of that government, and an ensuing succession of "ministerial" governments, from March 30, 1930 (after the second government of Tony Blair "lookalike" Ramsay MacDonald had been installed, on June 8, 1929), through President Hindenburg's appointment of Adolf Hitler on January 30, 1933.

The key, London-directed figure of Germany throughout this period was Brooklyn, N.Y.-born Hjalmar Horace Greeley Schacht, a life-long asset of the J.P. Morgan interests, with direct control over Schacht exerted by the Bank of England's Montagu Norman. This was the same Norman who was the controller of the financial house of Averell Harriman, during all of the relevant years leading up to and beyond the Hitler coup d'état. It was Schacht, deployed, by Norman, to bring the New York bankers into support for Hitler, who, assisted by British intelligence services, organized the German side of the Hitler coup d'état against the government of Kurt von Schleicher (and Hitler's later assassination of von Schleicher).

The Anglo-American financiers' immediate motive for bringing Hitler to power, was the commitment of those London and New York bankers behind Schacht, to prevent the implementation of an economic-recovery policy designed by a brilliant key figure, Dr. Wilhelm Lautenbach, of the pro-U.S.A. Friedrich List Society. Notably, the Lautenbach plan, like the tradition of Friedrich List himself, expressed the political-economic philosophy of the founders of the U.S.A., and was the only policy, other than the like-minded President Franklin Roosevelt's U.S. recovery policy, which could have provided a democratic solution for what is known in most history books as "The Great Depression." This Lautenbach plan, which echoes the November 1989 recovery plan of Deutsche Bank's assassinated Alfred Herrhausen, was the intended economic recovery program for a von Schleicher government in Germany. It was Norman's puppet Schacht, who deployed to New York, to mobilize Wall Street support for a coup d'état to bring Hitler immediately into power in Germany.

Notably, Schacht motivated the coup d'état, by libelling the Lautenbach plan, and von Schleicher, as "Bolsheviks" who had to be stopped, just as Gore's backers use the foolish Gore as their spearhead for putting an "enemy image" on the faces of the pro-national sovereignty governments of Mexico, China, Russia, Malaysia, et al. Gore's deployment, on behalf of the British Duke of Edinburgh's Transparency International, to classify defense of national sovereignty as "corruption," shows the motive behind rabid Anglophile Gore's bloody hand in the situation today.

In a situation similar to that of 1932-1933 Germany, today, the only workable alternative for the presently ongoing disintegration of the world's financial system, is the "New Bretton Woods" program which I have introduced. With the full confirmation of my warning of an October 1997 crisis, that "New Bretton Woods" orientation went immediately onto a leading place on the world's agenda. It met resistance from the same species of sources (e.g., London's neo-Thatcherite, neo-MacDonald Prime Minister Tony Blair), which resisted the Lautenbach plan during 1931-1933. Essentially, it is the same Anglo-American financier interests, who backed Hitler and opposed Franklin Roosevelt, during 1933-1938, who are behind the use of Al Gore as their cat's-paw today. The economic, strategic, and social consequences of a Gore coup d'état now, would be similar to, but far worse than the outcome of the original Hitler coup d'état.

The result of that reaction, is the deployment of what Kissinger and Clay T. Whitehead have described as a "secret committee" organized to prepare for a coup d'état against the U.S. Constitution and its incumbent President, Bill Clinton.

It must be emphasized, again, that the strategic implications of such an Anglo-American national-security posture, under presently unfolding world economic, political, and social conditions, would, if tolerated, ensure a far more devastating result than Anglo-American bankers' unleashing of the 1933 Hitler coup.

The flavor of 1932-1934

The chronology of the most crucial related developments in the U.S.A., Britain, and Germany during 1929-1934, gives the flavor of the situation--then, and now.

The count-down to the Hitler coup d'état began in Paris, with the fateful prelude to the outbreak of the Great Depression, the June 7, 1929 failure of the Young Plan to provide workable alternatives for the looming international disaster posed by the unresolved issues of Germany's war-reparations debt. The immediate next shoe to drop, came in England, with the June 8, 1929 formation of the second government of Labour Party Prime Minister (James) Ramsay MacDonald. MacDonald's quasi-fascist government, which remained in office until June 7, 1935, is the forerunner of today's Blair regime. This was followed by not only the October 24, 1929 stock-market panic in New York, but also the November 9, 1932 election of "American Methods" spokesman Franklin Roosevelt as President-elect of the U.S.A. Notably, Wall Street and London adversary Roosevelt was, in economics, a co-thinker of the American System political-economic policies of Germany's Wilhelm Lautenbach.

The Anglo-American bankers responded to this crisis of the Young Plan's failure, by pulling down the Grand Coalition government of Social-Democratic Chancellor Hermann Müller, on March 27, 1930. The coup d'état was set off by a rigged crisis in the German government. The issue of the second reading of the doomed Young Plan, was turned into a de facto coup d'état by the abrupt resignation, on March 7, of the British bankers' agent Hjalmar Schacht from his position as president of Germany's central bank, the Reichsbank. In the ensuing parliamentary crisis, the Müller government collapsed on March 27, and the "Ramsay MacDonald of Germany," the brutal Heinrich Brüning, was installed on March 30.

From that point, until the London-run coup d'état against the von Schleicher government, thus bringing the otherwise unelectable Hitler to power in January 30, 1933, Germany was ruled by a series of four ministerial regimes, all of which, excepting the von Schleicher government, were tools of Schacht and the de facto Schacht-controlled Center Party.

That period, from 1928 through the September 12, 1932 collapse of the von Papen government, saw a combined, sudden collapse in the Social-Democratic vote for the national parliament, and a zooming upward of the Nazi vote. However, with the progressive self-discrediting of the Social-Democratic Party, the fall of the von Papen government was echoed by a significant turn away from the Nazi party, too. Schacht regarded the possibility of a coup d'état against von Schleicher, as London's last chance to keep the Hitler option alive. London and Wall Street were alarmed by the coincidence of Roosevelt's November 9, 1932 status as President-elect of the U.S.A., and sought to prevent von Schleicher and Lautenbach's American System economic policies coming into power in Germany.

So, the British, together with London's assets Morgan and Harriman, joined London in deploying the parliamentary coup d'état against von Schleicher, and bringing Hitler into power.

An ominous lesson for today

There is another bitter lesson for today, to be learned from the later events of 1933-1938. The immediate, foolish response to Hitler's appointment as Chancellor, from the Communists, Social-Democrats, and others, was, in effect, "Wait until the Germans begin to see what Hitler is like; they will turn to us." It did not work out that way. See the tempo of events leading into Hitler's consolidation of dictatorial and strategic power.

Von Schleicher was ousted on January 28, 1933. Hitler was made Chancellor on January 30. On the night of February 27, the unprotected German parliament building, the Reichstag, was burned down in an arson attack. That incident was used by the Nazi government of Prussia, under Hermann Göring, to launch a wave of terror against the political opponents and rivals of the Nazis. The power of government by decree, under the terms of the so-called Notverordnung, was activated, giving Hitler power of rule by emergency decree. By April 7, the Gleichschaltung laws, Nazi Propaganda Minister Josef Goebbels' echo of Prince Metternich's 1819 Carlsbad Beschlüsse (decrees) were installed, coinciding with the purging of Jews from influential positions in Prussian society. The Nazi book-burning was launched on May 10.

Hitler's dictatorship was consolidated rapidly during the following months. In the famous plebiscite of November 1933, the Nazi vote reported was more than 96 percent of the total. The end to effective resistance came in the Summer of 1934, approximately a year and a half after Schacht's orchestration of the coup d'état against the von Schleicher government. This consolidation of Hitler's personal power as a dictator, came in three developments:

  1. The "night of the long knives," the so-called Röhm purge, which eliminated not only potential challengers to Hitler from within the populist-based "brown shirts" of his own party, but also provided the occasion to assassinate a key target of Schacht's hatred, former German Chancellor and General Kurt von Schleicher.

  2. The convenient death, on Aug. 2, of President Paul von Hindenburg.

  3. Hitler's use of the occasion of President Hindenburg's death to supersede the elective position of President by Hitler's perpetual personal authority as Führer.

Thus, on August 19, 1934, Hitler's dictatorship was consolidated. By the close of 1938, with the October march into Czechoslovakia, and the November "Crystal Night" against Jews in Berlin, Hitler was politically positioned to unleash a new world war.

Such are the disasters suffered by those people of a nation which tolerates the sort of coup d'état being run now against the U.S. Constitution and President, a coup being run by those Republicans and others, who have stated their disposition to welcome the otherwise unelectable Al Gore immediately into the office of President.

Schacht and Gore

To speak with absolute objectivity, Al Gore personally is an ideologically perverted, wooden-headed fool, utterly lacking in visible cognitive intelligence, but with a sly and viciously backstabbing cowardice, nonetheless, a shameless tory fan of the British monarchy, and crony and bloody-handed accomplice of that Ramsay MacDonald-style fascist "mad bomber" Tony Blair. Politically, he is thoroughly owned by the same crew which created his political career, those intimate circles of the British royal family, most notably the Duke of Edinburgh and Prince Charles, with whose pet peeves and perverted causes British lackey Gore became associated through his patron and controller Armand Hammer.

What Gore is, personally, is essentially nothing. What he is, politically, is a tool of such others as do not flinch from soiling their hands by taking over, manipulating, and, in time, discarding, with equal shamelessness the same pathetic political creatures, such as Gore, whom they have not merely used, but used up. It is easy to have contempt for a Gore, but, in himself, he, like the village idiot and resident firebrand, while a significant public security risk, is, like any pathetic mental case, hardly deserving of such strong emotion as personal malice. So, he is being used by Henry A. Kissinger et al., just as Kissinger set up the President he manipulated, Richard Nixon, for self-destruction in the Watergate affair. If you recognize Gore as the pathetic bi-polar personality he is, you can readily understand how he is manipulated by those, of the likes of Henry Kissinger, who use him, as if he were a mere puppet on a string.

The Gore problem lies entirely in two matters. First, the strategic purpose for which he, as a mere dupe of his own pathetic ambitions, is being used. Second, the disgusting corruption shown by those, like a Clay T. Whitehead or cronies of the Henry A. Kissinger and Bush pack, who wittingly betray the United States itself in such ways as to put not only this nation, but much of the world at strategic risk. This is a risk so grave that no standard of comparison from the earlier experience of this century, even two World Wars, measures the sheer awfulness of the treasonous things those accomplices of the "secret committee" operations around Gore are doing.

On the Gore issue, it is thus time for Americans and others to face the kinds of facts which the German population of 1932-1933 refused to face. The comparison of the coup d'état around Gore with the earlier case of Hitler, is not only justified; it is morally urgent that that comparison be made, far and wide, and loud and clear.

Gore must merely learn to play the Cheshire Cat for those childish occasions, such as costume parties, he finds most compatible with his limitations; let him, thus, fade, giggling happily, but quietly, from the scene. Blair, meanwhile, must be removed. Unless those two related measures are taken, no part of this planet will be safe for anyone much longer. All Hell is about to bust loose in the weeks just ahead. Wake up! Put Gore quietly into the background, and Blair out of the way of doing more harm than he has done, not only to Britain, but the world, already. Anyone who has yet to understand the importance of forcing through those two actions now, knows nothing of much importance about world events in progress today.