Hitler's Bogus Crisis of ‘Public Order'

Adolf Hitler was a master of manufacturing public-security crises to advance his authoritarian agenda.
He used inflammatory tactics and rhetoric to disable constitutional protections for the Weimar Republic's 17 federated states, crushing their leadership and imposing his will on the country. 'I myself was once a federalist during my time in the opposition,' Hitler told Hans Lex, a Reichstag delegate for the Bavarian People's Party, in mid-March 1933, 'but I have now come to the conviction that the Weimar constitution is fundamentally flawed.' Federalism, Hitler said, encouraged states to pursue local interests at the expense of the nation.
'The rest of the world watched in astonishment and glee as democratic leaders of the individual states, relying on the Weimar Constitution,' Hitler continued, 'did not hesitate to attack the Reich government in the fiercest way possible at public rallies, in the press and on the radio.' Hitler vowed to end the 'eternal battle' between the states and the central government by dismantling the federated system, crushing states' rights, and forging 'a unified will' for the nation.
In a statement to the press, Hitler said that the imposition of central authority should be seen not as the 'raping' of state sovereignty but rather as the 'alignment' of state policies with the central government's.
Timothy W. Ryback: What the press got wrong about Hitler
Hitler had been more circumspect when he addressed the Reichsrat, a federal body of state representatives intended to monitor the relationship between the Reich and state governments, on Thursday, February 2, 1933, three days after his appointment as chancellor. The country's federated states, Hitler had said then, were the 'historic building blocks of the German nation.' He insisted that he had no intention of intruding on state sovereignty. He would assert Reich control only 'where absolutely necessary.'
Three weeks later, on February 27, the Reichstag fire provided Hitler with the 'absolutely necessary' excuse he needed. Hitler claimed that an arson attack on the Reichstag by a lone perpetrator—who was caught in the act— was the start of an attempted Bolshevik revolution, using that false claim to suspend civil liberties and suppress the voting rights of the German Communist Party, thereby enabling his supporters in the Reichstag to pass legislation granting him authoritarian power.
At Hitler's urging, President Paul von Hindenburg issued an Article 48 emergency decree, 'Decree of the Reich President for the Protection of People and State.' The first paragraph suspended civil liberties, providing Hitler the means to suppress political opposition in advance of the upcoming elections on March 5. The second paragraph gave Hitler the power to trample states' rights: 'If any state fails to take the necessary measures to restore public safety and order, the Reich government may temporarily take over the powers of the highest state authority.'
That second paragraph sent alarm bells clanging in state capitals across the country, nowhere louder than in Bavaria, where concern over state sovereignty had run high from the outset of Hitler's chancellorship. Heinrich Held, the minister president—the equivalent of a U.S. state governor—of Bavaria, the second-largest federated state after its neighbor Prussia, was among the Weimar Republic's fiercest states'-rights advocates. He had a jurist's keen eye for legal loopholes and political subterfuge. Though the Weimar constitution was lauded by legal experts as one of the most democratic and progressive of its time, Held considered it to be disquietingly unclear and pliable when it came to states' rights. In the emergency-powers provision of Article 48, he detected the 'seeds of dictatorship.'
'The developments in public affairs in Germany fill the Bavarian state government with grave concern,' Held had written to Hindenburg five days into Hitler's chancellorship. 'Based on what has been announced, it seems the relationship of the states to the Reich could undergo a significant change.'
By 'developments in public affairs,' Held was referring to what had happened in Prussia the previous year. In July 1932, a Reich governor had been installed there, ostensibly to restore public order following street violence between communists and National Socialists. Prussia claimed that the Reich government had overreached, and took the matter to the Constitutional Court. Fearing what a ruling for the Reich would forebode for other federated states, Held had Bavaria join the lawsuit.
State of Prussia v. Reich Government placed the high court in a precarious position not just judicially but also politically—the Reich governor's installation in Prussia was a fait accompli. If the judges ruled in favor of Prussia, the Reich could simply ignore the court. But the greater danger, Held feared, was that Hindenburg would exercise his Article 48 powers to invoke a constitutionally permissible 'Reich Execution' that would permit the army to impose central authority on a state. If Prussia were to resist such an imposition, a constitutional crisis could quickly devolve into civil war.
On October 25, 1932, the court ruled that although Hindenburg had acted within his constitutional authority in installing a Reich governor, Prussia nonetheless still retained administrative control over its territory. The tangled ruling baffled legal experts and general observers alike. Vorwärts, the Social Democratic newspaper, wrote, 'Only the gods know how this situation can realistically be resolved.' Hitler resolved the situation rather bluntly: After taking office as chancellor, he simply dissolved the Prussian state government.
Having watched the Reich government do this, Held now feared a similar intrusion—or worse—in Bavaria: At Hitler's first cabinet meeting as chancellor, he had considered deploying the army to quell public unrest. Hitler's defense minister informed the new chancellor that ordering German soldiers to shoot German citizens on German soil was unthinkable—the army was trained exclusively to fight an 'external enemy.'
In his letter to Hindenberg, Held had reminded the German president of his solemn oath to uphold the democratic principles and federated structures of the Weimar constitution. 'The Bavarian state government places its trust in Your Excellency as protector of constitutional rights and of justice,' Held wrote. Hindenburg wrote back offering reassurance. 'Neither the Reich government nor I personally,' he wrote, 'are pursuing plans designed to eradicate the sovereignty of the federated states and to establish a centralized state.' Hindenburg added that he also had no intention of 'inserting Reich Governors into the business of state governments.' Still, rumors of Hitler's designs on Bavaria's sovereign authority persisted.
Timothy W. Ryback: How Hitler dismantled a democracy in 53 days
Two weeks later, Fritz Schäffer, the head of the Bavarian People's Party, traveled to Berlin to meet with Hindenburg and reiterate the state's concerns about Hitler's anti-federalist designs. Schäffer did not mince words. 'If the Reich sends a Reich governor to Bavaria, he will be arrested at the state border,' Schäffer told Hindenburg. Further, if Hitler's storm troopers attempted to stage a coup in Bavaria, Schäffer said, the state government would mobilize the Bavaria Watch, a state militia of 30,000 men that was aligned with the Bavarian People's Party. The Bavarian militia, battle-hardened by the Great War, Schäffer warned, would crush Hitler's ragtag bands of brownshirt storm troopers 'with ruthless force.'
Hindenburg assured Schäffer that even if the state government were not politically aligned with the Reich, he had 'no intention of installing Reich governors in states where order prevails.' Hindenburg said that he valued 'Bavaria and the Bavarian people and would avoid anything that would bring Bavaria into conflict with the Reich.'
Ten days later, the Reichstag fire and ensuing emergency decree scrambled the constitutional calculus. A day after Hindenburg exercised his Article 48 authority, Heinrich Held was in Berlin for a meeting with Hitler. The Bavarian minister president informed the Reich chancellor in no uncertain terms that his federated state did not require Reich assistance in maintaining public order. After an hour and a half, Held emerged, with Hitler's assurance 'that there will be no use of paragraph two against states in which, like Bavaria, law and order are maintained by state authorities.'
The March 5 Reichstag elections delivered Hitler 44 percent of the electorate and with that a claim on political power at every level of government. The next day, 200,000 National Socialist brownshirts stormed state and municipal offices across the country. Swastika banners draped town halls. Civil servants were thrown from their desks.
But not in Bavaria. Held's solid block of more than 1 million voters, along with the threat of armed resistance by the Bavaria Watch, gave Hitler pause. So did Schäffer's threat to call on Bavaria's Prince Rupprecht to reestablish monarchical rule.
Hitler huddled with his lieutenants to frame a strategy for Bavaria. Storm troopers would stage public disturbances, triggering a response under paragraph two of Article 48, enabling Hitler to suspend the Held government, and install a Reich governor in its place.
Three days after the election, on Wednesday, March 8, Held was in his office when he heard Hitler storm troopers singing the Nazi Party anthem in a public square. Shortly before noon, three Hitler lieutenants—Ernst Röhm, Heinrich Himmler, and Adolf Wagner—all in brown uniforms and jackboots, stomped into Held's office. Noting the 'protesting' Nazi storm troopers outside Held's office—staged there per Hitler's secret decree—Röhm expressed concern about public safety, and demanded that Held agree to install a Reich governor. Wagner slapped a whip across Held's desk. Held rose to his feet. He informed the three men that, as minister president, he needed to consult his cabinet. Wagner demanded an answer by noon. Held refused. 'Noon is lunchtime,' he is reputed to have said. 'I never make decisions at lunchtime.'
By the time Hitler's lieutenants reconvened with Held, at 3:40 that afternoon, this time in the company of a prospective Reich governor, Franz von Epp, Held had conferred with his cabinet. 'The Bavarian government is fully capable of maintaining peace and public order on its own,' he said, adding that he would not be coerced or intimidated. That evening, Held telegraphed Hindenburg. He requested support from Reichswehr Division VII, garrisoned in Munich, in case the National Socialists staged a coup. Hindenburg declined to help. That Friday, Franz von Epp made his first public appearance as Bavaria's Reich governor. Armed storm troopers swarmed state administrative offices. Still, Held didn't budge. A pair of Nazi storm troopers, intended to intimidate the intransigent minister president, were posted outside Held's office, rifles slung over their shoulders.
Timothy W. Ryback: The oligarchs who came to regret supporting Hitler
That weekend, Hitler flew south to try to resolve the crisis personally. He summoned Hans Lex, the Reichstag delegate who now headed the Bavaria Watch militia. Hitler told Lex he wanted to discuss, in confidence, a potential coalition. Lex cautioned Hitler that the degree to which the Bavarian People's Party would be willing to cooperate with the National Socialists was limited. For instance, Lex said, he could in good conscience imagine placing '1,000 Social Democratic functionaries' in protective custody—but only so long as they were detained within the parameters of the law and were 'treated humanely.' However, 'one could not,' Lex continued, 'align with Christian values, for example, a terrorist action that saw political opponents randomly snatched and thrown up against a wall.' Lex assured Hitler that Minister President Held had matters in Bavaria well in hand, and he explained that, having won more than 1 million votes in the latest election, Held represented 'a solid and unshakable' political force, supported by the martial force of the 30,000 armed men of the Bavaria Watch. Unable to close a deal, Hitler returned to Berlin.
But Hitler didn't need a deal. Instead, he unleashed his own storm troopers—both the SA and the SS—on Bavaria. The Bavaria Watch did not mobilize. Prince Rupprecht did not intervene. Fritz Schäffer was accosted and beaten on the street, then hustled to the Nazi Party headquarters in Munich for interrogation. Held was forced from his official residence, and his family was threatened; eventually, he was forced to flee to Switzerland. With Held gone, the Reich governor assumed full authority over Bavaria. 'With the führer at midday when we receive the latest news from Munich,' Joseph Goebbels wrote in his diary on March 15. 'There can no longer be talk of resistance anywhere.' The New York Times reported that Hitler's efforts to 'steamroller' the country on his path to unchecked power were proving successful.
The ironies of history can be multilayered. Heinrich Held understood the threat that Hitler posed to democracy long before most people had ever heard of National Socialism or its leader. And a decade earlier, at a moment when Hitler was effectively a stateless immigrant in Germany, Held had been unable to deport him from the country.
In September 1924, the warden of Landsberg Prison, where Hitler was serving a five-year sentence for his failed Beer Hall Putsch, reported that incarceration had done nothing to temper the Nazi leader's authoritarian impulses. If anything, he wrote, Hitler had grown 'more mature, calmer, more calculating in his convictions.'
'There is no doubt that Hitler, after his release from the detention facility will return to political life,' the warden cautioned. 'He will seek to revive the nationalist movement according to his vision.' Held, then newly installed as minister president of Bavaria, moved to action. He prepared for Hitler's immediate deportation to his Austrian homeland upon release from prison.
A Bavarian delegation was dispatched to Vienna to discuss the handover, only to be told that the Austrians would under no circumstances allow the return of their native son. Vienna argued that Hitler had forfeited his Austrian citizenship as a result of his service in a Bavarian regiment. 'Hitler is considered as stateless, and as a result of the refusal by Austria to receive him, his deportation is no longer possible,' Held lamented in an internal memorandum. 'The government fears nonetheless that incarceration has in no way sobered or calmed Hitler, rather compelled him to continue to pursue his goals with undiminished energy.'

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Politico

4 hours ago

• Politico

How Germany Changed Its Mind About America, Thanks to Donald Trump

Five days after his election victory in February, Friedrich Merz's world collapses. That's how he will describe it later. That Friday evening, he steps off the stage at a large conference center in Hamburg's port, where cruise ships usually moor. He has just been hailed as 'the future federal chancellor,' and more than a thousand party supporters have cheered on their chairman at a rally of the local chapter of the Christian Democratic Union, Germany's main center-right party. At around 8:15 p.m., he shakes a few hands in farewell, then drops into the backseat of his official car for the three-hour drive home. It is February 28, 2025. Merz checks his phone and notices a message from his spokesperson. He should watch a video, preferably immediately. Merz pulls out his iPad, opens the link, and recognizes a room familiar to anyone who follows politics. Two armchairs upholstered in gold damask sit in front of a fireplace with no fire burning. In front of the fireplace is a table made of fine wood inlaid with an oversized seal. It's the Oval Office in the White House. To Donald Trump's right sits a small, bearded man in a black military sweater embroidered with a stylized trident, the national symbol of Ukraine. It is Volodymyr Zelenskyy, the president of Ukraine, a country invaded by Russia. Merz holds him in high esteem. Merz has visited Zelenskyy twice in Kyiv and, just a few days ago, accepted Zelenskyy's congratulations on his election victory. Ukraine has high hopes for Merz. The new chancellor is expected to finally provide the Taurus, a German cruise missile capable of penetrating bunkers, which Merz's more liberal predecessor as chancellor, Olaf Scholz, refused to provide throughout his time in office. In the video, Zelenskyy looks tired. Tired and helpless. Merz is dismayed as he watches the U.S. president humiliate his Ukrainian counterpart. Trump accuses him of endangering millions of lives and risking a third world war. When Zelenskyy retorts that it was Russian President Vladimir Putin who started the war, Trump interjects harshly. In front of the cameras, Zelenskyy is scolded like a naughty child for several minutes. 'Did you ever say thank you?' Vice President JD Vance asks Zelenskyy, hurling this question at him several times. 'That was good television,' Trump says at the end of the meeting. The subsequent talks, which were supposed to be about security guarantees after a ceasefire, are canceled. A fully negotiated raw materials agreement is not signed. The celebratory lunch is canceled. Zelenskyy waits another 20 minutes in an adjoining room. Then, an official appears and simply sends him away. Merz has just finished watching the nearly 40-minute scene when he posts a solidarity message to Zelenskyy in English on X: 'We must never confuse the aggressor with the victim in this war!' He is on the phone nonstop in the car until he arrives in Sauerland and then for half the night. He also speaks with Scholz, who would still be chancellor for another two months. Scholz and his designated successor agree that something historic happened that day in Washington. The Americans are threatening not only to abandon Ukraine but also all their allies. Is Article 5 of the NATO Treaty, which requires every member to come to the defense of every other member, still to be taken seriously? Would U.S. soldiers defend Germany against a Russian attack? Are American nuclear missiles still a credible deterrent? The two men agree that given these circumstances, Germany must rebuild its national defenses. As quickly as possible and at whatever cost. And it will cost a lot, between 1 and 1.5 trillion euros over the next 12 years — double the previous amount. Spending that much money on defense isn't easy. In Germany, the 'Schuldenbremse' or 'debt brake' is a fiscal rule enshrined in the Constitution. It is designed to limit the amount of new government debt to a maximum of 0.35 percent of gross domestic product. Before the elections, Merz campaigned on keeping the debt brake and insisted as chancellor he could do without extra debt. But in the coming days, Merz will flip his position and agree to this new borrowing. The humiliation of Zelenskyy has changed everything. This account of the election of Merz and his first days as Germany's incoming chancellor is based on more than 50 conversations with sources, some close to Merz, who were granted anonymity to speak freely. Merz's doubts about his prior convictions had been building for weeks. A few days before the general election, Merz met with Vance in Munich. Merz wanted to dissuade the American vice president from publicly urging Germans to vote for the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) party. 'These are not friends of America,' Merz said, 'but partisans of Putin.' Vance nodded in apparent agreement. Just a few hours later, during his speech at the Munich Security Conference, Vance stunned the audience. He declared that restrictions on freedom of speech in the EU are a greater threat than Russia or China. He called for firewalls to be torn down across Europe and for right-wing populists to be included in politics. The vice president did not mention the AfD by name. However, a few hours later, reports circulated that Vance had met with not only Merz, but also with AfD leader Alice Weidel at his hotel before the speech. He had not told Merz about this meeting. Even then, two weeks before Zelenskyy's humiliation in the Oval Office and one week before the Bundestag elections, Merz had begun privately considering the need for Germany to take on additional billions in debt. 'What the new American president, Donald Trump, has said in Washington these last few days…' he told the audience from the campaign stage in Hamburg, 'Ladies and gentlemen, we are witnessing a fundamental shift in the global political landscape.' Following the Munich Security Conference, Merz discreetly asked former Constitutional Court judge Udo Di Fabio to explore whether it would be possible to amend Germany's Basic Law with the votes of the outgoing Bundestag. The 'Basic Law' is Germany's equivalent of a constitution. It can only be changed by a two-thirds majority in parliament. That also applies to the debt brake. Getting a two-thirds vote would be possible with the old Bundestag, but not the new Bundestag that was expected to have a higher representation of AfD and other fringe parties. Shortly afterwards, Di Fabio sent him his expert opinion. Amendments to the Basic Law with the votes of MPs who had already been voted out of office were possible up to 30 days after the election. That would be March 25, the same day the new Bundestag would be seated. Merz would have less than a month to execute an about-face. On the day of the election, Merz gave the first public signal that his thinking was changing when he appeared with other candidates on the Berliner Runde, a television program in which party leaders comment on the election as soon as the polls close. 'For me, it will therefore be an absolute priority to strengthen Europe as quickly as possible so that, step by step, we can really achieve independence from the USA,' he said. Independence from the USA? Scholz, sitting right next to Merz on TV, could hardly believe it. Until now, European politicians had carefully avoided suggesting that Europe could manage its defense without the Americans. Germany, which has neither its own nuclear weapons nor a robust army, needs American troops and their nuclear umbrella more than anyone. Merz, considered a staunch transatlanticist, was giving up on the USA? 'Since U.S. President Donald Trump's statements last week, it has been clear to me that this administration is largely indifferent to the fate of Europe,' Merz continued. A summit of the transatlantic military alliance is scheduled for the end of June. 'Will we even be talking about NATO in its current form then?' he asked. 'Or will we then have to establish an independent European defense capability much more quickly?' The next day, when the election results had been tallied, Merz praised the outcome in a press conference: 29 percent was much less than the Christian Democrats had hoped for, but Merz argued it was a success if you look at the number of votes rather than percentage points. The Christian Democrats gained 2.5 million votes compared to the previous Bundestag election, and the Christian Socialists gained 500,000, he noted. What he failed to mention is that the AfD gained over 6 million votes. After an election campaign more polarizing than any in decades, more people turned out to vote than in previous years, and the AfD was the beneficiary. Merz was genuinely outraged by the scene in the Oval Office. But he also knew he could use this indignation to his advantage. After all, he would need a credible narrative to justify the political turnaround, the astronomical increase in defense spending, that will take place under his leadership. The election results meant that, for the first time since World War II, centrist parties no longer have a two-thirds majority in Parliament. Without a two-thirds majority, centrist parties cannot elect judges to the Federal Constitutional Court, declare war on an invader or amend the Basic Law. For example, to reform the debt brake. The situation is reminiscent of the late phase of the Weimar Republic. At that time, the National Socialists and Communists together held over 50 percent of the seats in the Reichstag, preventing the Social Democrats, Liberals and Christian Democrats from governing effectively — thus fueling growing frustration with democracy. This created a vicious circle that led to the collapse of the first republic at the beginning of the 1930s. Is this a bold comparison? The AfD and other fringe parties already control a blocking minority in the state parliaments of three German states: Saxony, Thuringia and Brandenburg. The same will be true in the Bundestag when the new MPs are seated March 25. Scholz also played a role in urging Merz's turnaround. In meetings unnoticed by the public, Scholz and Merz met several times in the chancellor's office after the Bundestag elections, sometimes with other center-right politicians present. At one of these meetings, Scholz presented intelligence service findings on the immense scale of the Russian arms buildup. Despite the enormous losses in Ukraine, Putin would have considerably more tanks and missiles in just a few years than before the invasion. The intelligence suggested he is preparing to wage another war, this time against Europe. Scholz, who campaigned as a peace chancellor, advised his successor to do the opposite: to massively rearm. Germany's new government coalition joined Merz's Christian Democrats with Scholz's Social Democrats. In the days after the election, the coalition partners convened private negotiations to reach a spending plan they could implement before March 25. In those talks, the sums involved increased by the hour. On March 4, when the partners reappeared in public to announce their deal, there was great astonishment. There were no longer any limits to rearmament. Merz secured special funds for a defense build-up over the next 10 years that were five times larger than an increase Scholz negotiated just three years ago. An additional special fund of 500 billion euros had been agreed upon for rebuilding the country's infrastructure. Why was Merz, the avowed debt hawk, now so willing to push Germany so deep into debt? 'In view of the threats to our freedom and peace on our continent, the same must now apply to our defense: Whatever it takes!' Merz said at a press conference. The saying was a quote from Mario Draghi, the former head of the European Central Bank, who used this slogan in 2012 to scare off speculators who wanted to bet on a breakup of the eurozone. Now Merz used the same quote to explain his rearmament plan. At a parliamentary group meeting later that day, Merz reported that he would be traveling to Brussels to take part in the meeting of the heads of state and government of the EU Council. And then he said something curious: 'If Trump announces his withdrawal from NATO tonight, then we, the Federal Republic of Germany, will be the first to have reacted correctly in advance.' There was horror among the MPs. Merz was deadly serious. The total turnaround in financial policy began after the shock appearance by Vance at the Munich Security Conference. Merz justified it by pointing to the humiliation of Zelenskyy at the White House. But now he was talking about an imminent U.S. withdrawal from NATO. How did Merz get this idea? Trump was set to give his first speech to a joint session of Congress that same night. Merz explained to close allies later that he had received information from an American source indicating that Trump would use the speech to announce a U.S. withdrawal from the Western defense alliance. He had reason to trust his source. Two weeks earlier, the source had provided him with advance information on Vance's speech at the Munich Security Conference. Merz held a conference call the night before the speech and warned Christian Democratic leaders that Vance would shake the transatlantic friendship and launch a rhetorical attack on Europe. That is exactly what happened. Merz and his allies were prepared. Warned once again, Merz expected the worst from Trump's speech to Congress. During conversations and phone calls with confidants, he made it even clearer than he had in the parliamentary group meeting that if Trump announced a NATO withdrawal that night, Putin might react immediately with an attack on the Baltic states. During those hours when he agreed Germany should take on a trillion-euro debt, Merz was acting on the belief that a new war in Europe was possible and NATO was on the brink of collapse. His vote in favor of the record debt came against this dramatic backdrop. As we know, things turned out differently. Trump delivered his congressional speech but did not mention a withdrawal from NATO. To this day, Merz does not believe that his Washington source misinformed him. The NATO withdrawal announcement had been prepared, he believes. Trump changed his mind at the last minute. (POLITICO Magazine asked the White House to respond to the assertion that Trump had considered using his March 4 speech to a joint session of Congress to announce a U.S. withdrawal from NATO. In an emailed statement, White House spokeswoman Anna Kelly said, 'Such an announcement was never included in any draft of any speech.')

Politico

8 hours ago

• Politico

The winners and losers in Trump's NATO arms race

NATO members are rushing to show President Donald Trump they're shoveling money into defense — some with a dose of creative math — as Russia's battle with Ukraine grinds on and war threatens to consume the Middle East. The group's summit this week in The Hague, which Trump plans to attend, will attempt to set a deadline for members to spend 5 percent of GDP on defense. Trump has complained about European defense budgets since his first term, claiming the U.S. gets ripped off by countries that rely on Washington for a security blanket. The way allies approach this at the summit is critical. Leaders will need to walk a tightrope between staying on the president's good side — and continuing to benefit from America's role in NATO — and declaring more independence from Washington. As Trump increases pressure, members are touting new investments and shuffling around money — from a 'defense-adjacent' Sicilian bridge to a stopgap German fund. A POLITICO analysis reveals telling gaps between the big spenders in Eastern Europe and those further afield from Russia, who are still creeping toward a decade-old target. The 32 member states break down into three groups: the winners, the risers and the laggards. Most countries occupy a crowded middle ground, not quite racing toward the new 5 percent goal, but making solid progress in exceeding the current 2 percent mark. 'Most of NATO recognizes that it has to be better,' said a U.S. Defense Department official, who like others, was granted anonymity to discuss internal conversations. 'We're looking at these meetings as a very public chance, with the president watching, for them to step up.' Here's how NATO members are faring in the race to spend. Poland has led the pack for the last several years, spending 4.7 percent of its GDP on defense as it splurges on everything from drones to fighter planes. The country, which borders Russia and has dealt with errant missiles killing citizens, is keenly aware of the threat from its eastern flank. That kind of wake-up call has spurred Warsaw to ask the European Commission to shift $6.9 billion of its funding in green projects to defense. The bigger spending has made Poland a favorite in Washington. The Poles are getting creative in their weapons purchases by mixing systems and suppliers from multiple countries to get equipment delivered faster. Poland was the first NATO member to spend billions on South Korean long-range artillery and other systems — a move that other countries frustrated with delayed shipments of U.S. weapons, such as Finland, are emulating. Countries will do 'whatever works' to get to 5 percent, said a diplomat from a NATO member country, including folding infrastructure upgrades into defense spending to push the overall number higher. Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia — former Russian territories that tend to march in lockstep when it comes to defense spending — have outlined plans to hit 5 percent by next year or soon after. They're already among the alliance's top spenders. Baltic officials are embracing a 'porcupine' strategy, modeled off Taiwan's efforts to ward off a Chinese invasion. This involves using small, mobile and lethal weapons fired from shore at any Russian Baltic Sea fleet ships that might threaten them. Greece is a surprise spender on defense, bucking the trend of most Mediterranean countries by dishing out more than 3 percent of its GDP. Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis in April announced a 12-year, $28 billion defense strategy that will focus on uncrewed vehicles, munitions, drones, satellites and its Achilles' Shield air defense system. The U.S. spends more than any other member on defense, but it still only reaches 3.4 percent of GDP. The country faces its own political challenges in reaching the NATO goal, even with a potential 2035 deadline that allies may recommend at the summit. The United Kingdom and France, Europe's two nuclear states, have made steady increases in recent years but face issues behind the scenes. Britain's defense budget rose from 2.2 percent of GDP in 2023 to 2.3 percent in 2024, with a sharp increase in research and development spending. It also paid extra for major operations such as air defense in the Red Sea and aircraft carriers deployed to the Pacific. Prime Minister Keir Starmer has promised to take that figure to 2.6 percent by 2026 — thanks in part to folding in intelligence and slashing spending on foreign aid. But he's beset by severe budget issues and has not yet set out a path to his goal of hitting even 3 percent. Paris has steadily increased defense spending since President Emmanuel Macron came to power in 2017. But it only hit 2 percent last year. France is one of the European Union's most indebted countries, and public finances are dire. It's unclear how the government would find extra money to reach the 5 percent goal, especially as Macron has ruled out raising taxes. Germany and Sweden have both rewritten their debt rules as they reach 2 percent and aim higher. German governments saw the NATO target as non-binding for years, and only the advent of war in Europe — dubbed the Zeitenwende, or turning point, by former German Chancellor Olaf Scholz — prompted the country to change course. Berlin in 2024 reported 2.1 percent of GDP on defense spending, exceeding the alliance benchmark for the first time since 1990. But the increase doesn't boost combat strength and relies on some fancy accounting. A sizable chunk of the 2024 defense budget came from a special temporary spending fund. Sweden's defense spending surged following its 2024 accession to NATO from 1.5 percent to 2.2 percent of GDP last year. Stockholm is tweaking its debt rules to allow for up to about $30 million in defense loans by 2035. Then there's Turkey. While Ankara has missed the 2 percent mark in recent years, it has a well-developed arms industry and punches above its spending weight in weapons and the size of its military — the second-largest in NATO. Several strategically vital countries hang well below the 5 percent goal, particularly Canada, Spain and Italy. All three have made pledges to catch up. But politics, accounting tricks and historical habits are slowing progress. Canada spends just 1.37 percent of GDP on defense, with key equipment gaps across its forces. Prime Minister Mark Carney this month promised to hit 2 percent 'this fiscal year,' bringing forward a target initially set up for 2029. The lag has deep roots. Ottawa has long relied on U.S. defense guarantees while prioritizing social spending and climate goals. Carney is framing rearmament as a sovereignty issue in light of Trump's threats to annex Canada, but that would require a rapid ramp-up in procurement and industrial capacity. Spain remains NATO's lowest spender, aside from Iceland, which has no army. Madrid spent 1.3 percent of GDP on defense in 2024. Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez has rolled out an €11 billion military upgrade plan to reach 2 percent this year. It's the country's most ambitious defense posture in decades. But Sánchez is boxed in by his governing coalition. Left-wing allies remain opposed to higher military budgets, and previous attempts to raise spending triggered a backlash. He asked Rutte this month, in a letter obtained by POLITICO, for a carveout to the new spending target. 'It is the legitimate right of every government to decide whether or not they are willing to make those sacrifices,' he wrote, saying it would jeopardize the country's welfare system. Italy was only slightly higher at 1.5 percent last year. Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni said the government will hit the 2 percent target this year, but officials suggest that may happen more through clever accounting. Rome wants civilian infrastructure, such as a planned bridge to Sicily, to count as a defense-adjacent goal. Defense spending remains a politically fraught topic as the country faces high debt levels and strong pressure to protect pensions and welfare. This text is a collaboration of the Axel Springer Global Reporters Network. Paul McLeary reported from Washington, Chris Lunday reported from Berlin and Esther Webber reported from London. Jacopo Barigazzi in Brussels, Mike Blanchfield in Ottawa, Jack Detsch in Washington, WELT's Philipp Fritz in Warsaw, Max Griera in Brussels, WELT's Thorsten Jugholt in Berlin and Laura Kayali in Paris contributed to this report.

Chicago Tribune

9 hours ago

• Chicago Tribune

Today in History: Voting age lowered to 18

Today is Sunday, June 22, the 173rd day of 2025. There are 192 days left in the year. Today in history: On June 22, 1970, President Richard Nixon signed an extension of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 that lowered the minimum voting age to 18. Also on this date: In 1815, Napoleon Bonaparte abdicated for a second time as Emperor of the French. In 1938, in a rematch that bore the weight of both geopolitical symbolism and African American representation, American Joe Louis knocked out German Max Schmeling in just two minutes and four seconds to retain his heavyweight boxing title in front of 70,000 spectators at New York's Yankee Stadium. 1941, Nazi Germany launched Operation Barbarossa, a massive and ultimately ill-fated invasion of the Soviet Union that would prove pivotal to the Allied victory over the Axis Powers. In 1944, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1944, more popularly known as the 'GI Bill of Rights,' which provided tuition coverage, unemployment support and low-interest home and business loans to returning veterans. In 1945, the World War II Battle of Okinawa ended with an Allied victory. In 1977, John N. Mitchell became the first former U.S. Attorney General to go to prison as he began serving a sentence for his role in the Watergate cover-up. In 1981, Mark David Chapman pleaded guilty to killing rock star and former Beatle John Lennon. In 1986, Argentine soccer player Diego Maradona scored the infamous 'Hand of God' goal in the quarterfinals of the FIFA World Cup against England, giving Argentina a 1-0 lead. (Maradona would follow minutes later with a remarkable individual effort that become known as the 'Goal of the Century,' and Argentina won 2-1.) In 1992, the U.S. Supreme Court, in R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, unanimously ruled that 'hate crime' laws that banned cross burning and similar expressions of racial bias violated free-speech rights. In 2011, after evading arrest for 16 years, mob boss James 'Whitey' Bulger was captured in Santa Monica, California. In 2012, former Penn State assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky was convicted by a jury in Bellefonte, Pennsylvania, on 45 counts of sexually assaulting 10 boys over 15 years. (Sandusky would later be sentenced to 30 to 60 years in prison.) Today's Birthdays: Actor Prunella Scales is 93. Actor Klaus Maria Brandauer is 82. Fox News analyst Brit Hume is 82. Musician-producer Peter Asher (Peter and Gordon) is 81. Musician-producer Todd Rundgren is 77. Actor Meryl Streep is 76. Actor Lindsay Wagner is 76. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., is 76. Actor Graham Greene is 73. Singer-songwriter Cyndi Lauper is 72. Actor Bruce Campbell is 67. Environmental activist Erin Brockovich is 65. Sen. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., is 65. Basketball Hall of Famer Clyde Drexler is 63. Actor Amy Brenneman is 61. Author Dan Brown is 61. Actor Mary Lynn Rajskub is 54. Football Hall of Famer Kurt Warner is 54. TV personality Carson Daly is 52. Actor Donald Faison is 51. Football Hall of Famer Champ Bailey is 47. Golfer Dustin Johnson is 41.