Monday, February 27, 2023

Revealed: the US is averaging one chemical accident every two days

Guardian analysis of data in light of Ohio train derailment shows accidental releases are happening consistently

Mike DeWine, the Ohio governor, recently lamented the toll taken on the residents of East Palestine after the toxic train derailment there, saying “no other community should have to go through this”.

But such accidents are happening with striking regularity. A Guardian analysis of data collected by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and by non-profit groups that track chemical accidents in the US shows that accidental releases – be they through train derailments, truck crashes, pipeline ruptures or industrial plant leaks and spills – are happening consistently across the country.

By one estimate these incidents are occurring, on average, every two days.

“These kinds of hidden disasters happen far too frequently,” Mathy Stanislaus, who served as assistant administrator of the EPA’s office of land and emergency management during the Obama administration, told the Guardian. Stanislaus led programs focused on the cleanup of contaminated hazardous waste sites, chemical plant safety, oil spill prevention and emergency response.

In the first seven weeks of 2023 alone, there were more than 30 incidents recorded by the Coalition to Prevent Chemical Disasters, roughly one every day and a half. Last year the coalition recorded 188, up from 177 in 2021. The group has tallied more than 470 incidents since it started counting in April 2020.

The incidents logged by the coalition range widely in severity but each involves the accidental release of chemicals deemed to pose potential threats to human and environmental health.

Map of reported chemical accidents in the US created by Coalition To Prevent Chemical Disasters. Red icons indicate accidents from 1 January to 31 December 2022. Purple icons indicate accidents since 1 January 2023. Photograph: Coalition To Prevent Chemical Disasters

In September, for instance, nine people were hospitalized and 300 evacuated in California after a spill of caustic materials at a recycling facility. In October, officials ordered residents to shelter in place after an explosion and fire at a petrochemical plant in Louisiana. In November, more than 100 residents of Atchinson, Kansas, were treated for respiratory problems and schools were evacuated after an accident at a beverage manufacturing facility created a chemical cloud over the town.

Among multiple incidents in December, a large pipeline ruptured in rural northern Kansas, smothering the surrounding land and waterways in 588,000 gallons of diluted bitumen crude oil. Hundreds of workers are still trying to clean up the pipeline mess, at a cost pegged at around $488m.

The precise number of hazardous chemical incidents is hard to determine because the US has multiple agencies involved in response, but the EPA told the Guardian that over the past 10 years, the agency has “performed an average of 235 emergency response actions per year, including responses to discharges of hazardous chemicals or oil”. The agency said it employs roughly 250 people devoted to the EPA’s emergency response and removal program.

‘Live in daily fear of an accident’

The coalition has counted 10 rail-related chemical contamination events over the last two and a half years, including the derailment in East Palestine, where dozens of cars on a Norfolk Southern train derailed on 3 February, contaminating the community of 4,700 people with toxic vinyl chloride.

The vast majority of incidents, however, occur at the thousands of facilities around the country where dangerous chemicals are used and stored.

“What happened in East Palestine, this is a regular occurrence for communities living adjacent to chemical plants,” said Stanislaus. “They live in daily fear of an accident.”

In all, roughly 200 million people are at regular risk, with many of them people of color, or otherwise disadvantaged communities, he said.

There are close to 12,000 facilities across the nation that have on site “extremely hazardous chemicals in amounts that could harm people, the environment, or property if accidentally released”, according to a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report issued last year. These facilities include petroleum refineries, chemical manufacturers, cold storage facilities, fertilizer plants and water and wastewater treatment plants, among others.

EPA data shows more than 1,650 accidents at these facilities in a 10-year span between 2004 and 2013, roughly 160 a year. More than 775 were reported from 2014 through 2020. Additionally, after analyzing accidents in a recent five-year period, the EPA said it found accident-response evacuations impacted more than 56,000 people and 47,000 people were ordered to “shelter-in-place.”

Accident rates are particularly high for petroleum and coal manufacturing and chemical manufacturing facilities, according to the EPA. The most accidents logged were in Texas, followed by Louisiana and California.

Though industry representatives say the rate of accidents is trending down, worker and community advocates disagree. They say incomplete data and delays in reporting incidents give a false sense of improvement.

The EPA itself says that by several measurements, accidents at facilities are becoming worse: evacuations, sheltering and the average annual rate of people seeking medical treatment stemming from chemical accidents are on the rise. Total annual costs are approximately $477m, including costs related to injuries and deaths.

“Accidental releases remain a significant concern,” the EPA said.

In August, the EPA proposed several changes to the Risk Management Program (RMP) regulations that apply to plants dealing with hazardous chemicals. The rule changes reflect the recognition by EPA that many chemical facilities are located in areas that are vulnerable to the impacts of the climate crisis, including power outages, flooding, hurricanes and other weather events.

The proposed changes include enhanced emergency preparedness, increased public access to information about hazardous chemicals risks communities face and new accident prevention requirements.

The US Chamber of Commerce has pushed back on stronger regulations, arguing that most facilities operate safely, accidents are declining and that the facilities impacted by any rule changes are supplying “essential products and services that help drive our economy and provide jobs in our communities”. Other opponents to strengthening safety rules include the American Chemistry Council, American Forest & Paper Association, American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers and the American Petroleum Institute.


View of the site of the derailment of a train carrying hazardous waste in East Palestine, Ohio. Photograph: Alan Freed/Reuters

The changes are “unnecessary” and will not improve safety, according to the American Chemistry Council.

Many worker and community advocates, such as the International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of America, (UAW), which represents roughly a million laborers, say the proposed rule changes don’t go far enough..

And Senator Cory Booker and US Representative Nanette Barragan – along with 47 other members of Congress - also have called on the EPA to strengthen regulations to protect communities from hazardous chemical accidents.

“The East Palestine train derailment is an environmental disaster that requires full accountability and urgency from the federal government. We need that same urgency to focus on the prevention of these chemical disasters from occurring in the first place,” Barragan said in a statement issued to the Guardian.

‘We’re going to be ready’

For Eboni Cochran, a mother and volunteer community activist, the East Palestine disaster has hardly added to her faith in the federal government. Cochran lives with her husband and 16-year-old son roughly 400 miles south of the derailment, near a Louisville, Kentucky, industrial zone along the Ohio River that locals call “Rubbertown.” The area is home to a cluster of chemical manufacturing facilities, and curious odors and concerns about toxic exposures permeate the neighborhoods near the plants.

Cochran and her family keep what she calls “get-out-of-dodge” backpacks at the ready in case of a chemical accident. They stock the packs with two changes of clothes, protective eyewear, first aid kits and other items they think they may need if forced to flee their home.

An aerial photo shows contaminated material being removed as cleanup continues in East Palestine, Ohio, on 18 February 2023. Photograph: Tannen Maury/EPA

The organization she works with, Rubbertown Emergency Action (React), wants to see continuous air monitoring near the plants, regular evacuation drills and other measures to better prepare people in the event of an accidental chemical release. But it’s been difficult to get the voices of locals heard, she says.

“Decision-makers are not bringing impacted communities to the table,” she said.

In the meantime React is trying to empower locals to be prepared to protect themselves if the worst happens. Providing emergency evacuation backpacks to people near plants is one small step.

“Even in small doses certain toxic chemicals can be dangerous. They can lead to long term chronic illness, they can lead to acute illness,” Cochran said. “If there is a big explosion, we’re going to be ready.”

  • This story is co-published with the New Lede, a journalism project of the Environmental Working Group.

Brazil's central govt tops expectations with record January budget surplus
A general view of the Central Bank headquarters building in Brasilia, Brazil February 14, 2023. REUTERS/Adriano Machado

BRASILIA, Feb 27 (Reuters) - Brazil's central government posted a better-than-expected primary budget surplus in January on the back of record tax revenues, Treasury data showed on Monday, although the outlook for the year is for a large deficit.

The central government, comprised of the Treasury, central bank and social security, reported a primary budget surplus of 78.3 billion reais ($15 billion) in January, above the median forecast of a 60.9 billion reais surplus in a Reuters poll.

This was the best nominal result for the month since 1997, boosted by higher revenues amid a surge in taxes on capital income, as the country's benchmark Selic interest rate was aggressively hiked to control inflationary pressures, resulting in larger collection over fixed-income funds and bonds.

After pushing its benchmark rate from a record-low of 2% in March 2021, the central bank paused its tightening cycle in September, holding it at 13.75%.

Although the central government's primary surplus reached 54.5 billion reais in 12 months, the primary deficit in this year's budget, the first under President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, had been forecast at 231.6 billion reais after Congress approval for a multi-billion spending package to increase expenses and meet campaign promises.

Finance Minister Fernando Haddad released a fiscal package in January to more than halve the shortfall, but the measures are uncertain, including a possible tax increase on fuels that needs Lula's approval.

Commentary: The American right has gone to war with 'woke capitalism.' Here's what they get wrong

The American right has gone to war with 'woke capitalism'—here's what they get wrong
Anglo American = blue, Glencore = turquoise, Rio Tinto = orange. Credit: Trading View

Ron DeSantis, Florida's Republican governor and likely future presidential contender, has opened up a new front in his party's war on "woke capitalism." He is proposing to change the rules around how public bodies within Florida borrow from the markets by issuing bonds.

The proposal is that they would no longer be able to work with ratings agencies that value the bonds using the ESG (environmental, social and governance) sustainability criteria that have become commonplace in the world of finance in the past few years. Public bodies and companies with lower ESG scores can see this reflected in their borrowing costs, and some politicians on the right object to this "interference" with market valuations.

DeSantis already pledged in December to pull US$2 billion (£1.7 billion) of the state's investment from BlackRock, the world's largest asset manager and a key player in the ESG movement. This was after 19 Republican state attorneys-general told the asset manager in a letter: "Our states will not idly stand for our pensioners' retirements to be sacrificed for BlackRock's climate agenda."

Eighteen states have also either proposed or adopted legislation over the past two years restricting state business with  that use ESG criteria to limit funding to industries like fossil fuels.

According to Republican senator Kevin Cramer from North Dakota, banks and asset managers "should ignore calls for ESG and woke capitalism and stick to what they do best." Former vice president Mike Pence wants the the next Republican congress to work to "end the use of ESG principles nationwide."

What they get wrong

Newly in charge of a Congressional branch, Republicans are taking their quest to Washington, DC. Andy Barr, the new chair of the House financial services subcommittee responsible for financial institutions, claimed America's financial system had been "co-opted by the intolerant left that is intolerant of diversity." For the US to be economically competitive, he said "we need our financial system to provide equal access to capital to all kinds of businesses."

This revealed either a remarkable ignorance about financial markets and the financial risks posed by environmental and social challenges—or he was being cynically misleading to score political points.

The notion of  to capital flies in the face of one of the central tenets of capitalism. The ability of different organizations to borrow and the price they pay is never equal. It depends on the risk of the investment and how many investors will take that risk.

Consider mining. It inherently impacts the environment and surrounding communities. Communities can tie owners up in lawsuits or even block mining access if their concerns go unaddressed. This can affect the mine's profitability.

Researchers have shown how two  with the same volumes of gold and extraction costs can be valued radically differently depending on local support. ESG ratings seek to capture such factors to enable investors to make better informed decisions.

For asset managers like BlackRock, it's also about customer demand. If investments that mitigate ESG risks offer a better risk-adjusted return and investors are increasingly shunning certain companies—be it gun manufacturers or fossil fuel producers—it will affect where money flows.

BlackRock's CEO, Larry Fink, recently said that his company lost about US$4 billion in assets from Republican-led states withdrawing money in 2022, but added US$400 billion overall. Nothing nefarious or political here, just capitalism at work.

Owners of dirty assets can still raise capital. It's just that the price may be higher. Look at the divergent coal strategies of mining giants Rio Tinto, Anglo American and Glencore.

Rio Tinto entirely exited coal in 2018. Anglo American has created a separate entity for these assets called Thungela, while Glencore still has coal in its portfolio and proposes to run it down responsibly over time. (Full disclosure: I hold the Rio Tinto Chair in Stakeholder Engagement at IMD, but the company has no influence over my research.)

Investors can choose between these strategies. At any moment, these companies' borrowing costs will reflect the consensus assessment of the underlying risk, including from ESG factors.

Glencore has not been cut off from capital markets and is doing quite well—reporting record 2022 profits fuelled largely by coal. Yet its  has not outperformed its peers, reflecting investor concerns about the long-term strategy.

Woke capitalism?

David Remnick, editor of The New Yorker magazine, recently said that for "conservatives now, wokeness is the root cause of everything negative." He interviewed linguist Tony Thorne, who traced the term to a 1971 Black liberationist play in which the main character says "I must stay woke."

Thorne explained that for today's progressives, particularly following Black Lives Matter, "woke" became synonymous with "socially aware" or "empathetic." But conservatives, he said, made this vague term a proxy for leftist self-righteousness, and so "anti-woke" became the rallying cry for any  they oppose—just like "political correctness" a generation ago.

While US conservatives are particularly fixated on anti-wokeness—"Florida is where woke goes to die," intoned Governor DeSantis in his November victory speech—it is not just an American phenomenon. For instance, the Atlantic magazine's Thomas Chatterton Williams recently observed: "The French are in a panic about Le Wokisme." Europe's debate has not yet spilled into financial markets, though it may only be a matter of time.

By labeling ESG "woke," conservatives imply that large parts of the US$100 trillion global asset management industry have been hijacked by leftists. Having spent time with lots of asset managers, it's nonsense.

Of course, not all is well in ESG land. Greenwashing is rampant, and rating agencies and asset managers get criticized for insufficiently scrutinizing firms' actual ESG performances.

Most dramatically in May 2022, German prosecutors raided the offices of DWS, Deutsche Bank's asset management unit, following allegations that it had vastly overstated its ESG investments. Lawsuits are ongoing, and DWS denies it misled investors.

Yet the idea that a firm would dress up "normal" assets as ESG simply demonstrates the investor demand for these products. Equally, greenwashing is pilloried because it makes it harder for investors to assess the underlying risks to a firm's future profitability. These problems highlight the need for better standards and regulation, which is to be expected in a nascent field like this.

Despite conservative opposition, analysts expect ESG investment to almost double over the next three years to nearly US$34 trillion, representing one in every five dollars invested worldwide. This is not an aberration of free-market principles but a reflection of them. That U.S. Republicans are puzzled by this says more about them and the echo chambers in which they have been moving than about the state of ESG.

Provided by The Conversation 

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.The Conversation


GOP vs. ESG: Why Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, Republicans are fighting 'woke' ESG investing

THE ORIGINAL'FALSE FLAG'

Chance or Nazi plot? Exhumation of 1933 Reichstag fire 'arsonist' could show Hitler orchestrated blaze to stay in power

27 February 2023

The Reichstag fire took place in 1933
The Reichstag fire took place in 1933. Picture: Getty

On this day 90 years ago, flamed engulfed Germany's parliament building - the Reichstag - six days before a national election, which historians say helped Adolf Hitler secure re-election as chancellor.

Dutch communist Marinus van der Lubbe confessed to the attack and was sentenced to death, aged 24. Then, and for a longer time afterwards, he was considered the sole perpetrator of the fire.

There have been some debates among some historians over whether the fire was simple dumb luck, handing Hitler his re-election, or whether it was an orchestrated manoeuvre by the Nazi Party to regain power.

Now, nearly 100 years on, van der Lubbe's body has been exhumed in the hope of finding a more definitive answer.

The main purpose of his exhumation was to determine whether it was indeed van der Lubbe that had been buried in the Leipzig South Cemetery.

The fire took place on this day in 1933
The fire took place on this day in 1933. Picture: Getty

But a pathologist is also examining his remains to see if there are any traces of toxins due to speculation that he had been given to confess to his crime, The Guardian reported.

There has been major support for the theory that it was solely van der Lubbe that committed the crime since Fritz Tobias published a book that argued the Reichstag fire was a "blind chance".

This theory argues that only one perpetrator could have carried out the attack as the Nazi party appeared surprised by the news, worrying that it was the beginning of a communist revolution.

Read More: Vladimir Putin's £274 million spy plane 'destroyed by drones' as pro-Ukraine partisans swoop

Read More: Putin will eventually be killed by his inner circle, Zelenskyy says

Van der Lubbe was also the only person arrested in the building at the time of the fire and was the only person who confessed to the crime.

But others believe that the "thoroughly prepared" nature of the arson attack suggests a larger plan beyond the capabilities of a mere 24-year-old communist.

“When it comes to the question of whether Marinus van der Lubbe could have carried out the arson attack all by himself, the evidence is overwhelming,” Carter Hett told the publication.

Marinus van der Lubbe
Marinus van der Lubbe. Picture: Getty

“There is no way he could have set fire to the plenary chamber within the 15 to 20 minutes at his disposal. He would have needed a hydrocarbon accelerant.”

“It is true that we are lacking any evidence as to how a link-up between Van der Lubbe and the SA could have come about,” Carter Hett added.

“It does still seem insane that they would have picked this unstable, almost blind young man as the fall guy.”

"Blind chance, an error" or Nazi plot?

Adolf Hitler used the fire to seize power in Germany
Adolf Hitler used the fire to seize power in Germany. Picture: Getty

Regardless of the cause of the fire, it is widely accepted that the chaos generated by the Reichstag fire helped Hitler to secure re-election as chancellor.

The fire, which was blamed on the "enemy within", took place just six days before the 1933 German federation.

Hitler was able to persuade Germany's president at the time to issue the Reichstag Fire Decree, suspending civil liberties in Germany.

A huge number of communists were arrested, including in the Reichstag, crippling communist participation in the election and helping Hitler to victory.

How the Nazis Exploited the Reichstag Fire to Launch a Reign of Terror


Ninety years ago today, a fire engulfed the Reichstag in Berlin. The arsonist, Marinus van der Lubbe, was hoping to inspire resistance to fascism, but the Nazis used the fire as a pretext to impose a regime of violent terror against the German left.


The Reichstag in flames, February 1933. (Wikimedia Commons)

02.27.2023
 Jacobin

Ninety years ago today, on February 27, 1933, a fire engulfed the German parliament, the Reichstag. The inferno came just weeks after the appointment of Adolf Hitler as Germany’s chancellor.

The Nazis had not yet established an untrammeled dictatorship, and they immediately used the Reichstag fire to strengthen their position. Claiming that the fire was meant to be the signal for a communist insurrection, they cracked down violently on their enemies — most of all the activists of the Communist Party (KPD).

Many people assumed that the Nazis must have been responsible for the fire, which came at such a convenient moment. Indeed, “Reichstag fire” still serves as a shorthand term for an act of terror used as an excuse to seize power.

However, the truth was simpler. The man responsible was a Dutch left-wing radical, Marinus van der Lubbe, who had been arrested inside the burning Reichstag. Van der Lubbe was a tragic figure whose actions contributed to the very outcome he wanted to prevent — a Nazi dictatorship that suppressed the organizations of the German working class.

A Political Maverick


Van der Lubbe was born on January 13, 1909, in the Dutch town of Leiden. He grew up in poverty. His father abandoned his mother and her seven children when Van der Lubbe was seven years old, and his mother died when he was just twelve. From that point on, Van der Lubbe was taken care of by his half sister and her husband. Both later described him as a sincere and selfless man.‘Reichstag fire’ still serves as a shorthand term for an act of terror used as an excuse to seize power.

Marinus — or Rinus as he was known — wanted to become a mason and started to work at a construction site. His fellow workers nicknamed him “Dempsey,” after the boxing champion Jack Dempsey, on account of his strength. It was at work that he encountered radical ideas, joining the Communist Youth Movement at the age of sixteen.

A work accident damaged his eyes, leaving him unable to work as a mason. He had to rely on a measly sum paid by social insurance and whatever jobs he could find. But he also became an activist, chairing meetings, putting up posters, selling the publications of the Communist Party of the Netherlands (CPN) in the street, and joining demonstrations.

Soon he engaged in his first confrontations with the police. The front page of the January 26, 1931 issue of the Dutch Communist Party newspaper De Tribune carried an article denouncing police violence against Van der Lubbe. It described him in glowing terms as a thoughtful comrade who was as strong as he was brave. In his hometown of Leiden, Van der Lubbe became a well-known figure among working-class radicals.

A headstrong, rebellious character, Van der Lubbe did not really fit in the CPN. He started doubting the party as it became increasingly rigid and top-down in the early 1930s. In 1932, Van der Lubbe and some of his comrades produced their own journal for unemployed workers called Werkloozenkrant. They insisted that the CPN’s rhetoric about “independent struggle from below” was no more than empty words.

In the late ’20s and early ’30s, while still a party member, Van der Lubbe traveled across Europe by walking and hitchhiking, working at farms in return for a meal and a place to stay for the night. After the Wall Street crash of 1929, there were many unemployed workers like him wandering Europe. Sometimes, Van der Lubbe traveled in company, but more often he preferred to go his own way. The party leadership did not appreciate the fact that he went on such travels on his own initiative.The council communists were a current of Marxists who rejected any role for political parties or trade unions in the emancipation struggle of the working class.

In 1931, Van der Lubbe left the CPN and joined the activities of the loosely organized council communist movement. The council communists were a current of Marxists who rejected any role for political parties or trade unions in the emancipation struggle of the working class. They put their hope in workers’ self-activity instead to form the workers’ councils that would reorganize society.

As Van der Lubbe and his comrades explained it in Werkloozenkrant:

Workers should unite, make decisions, and elect some of their own to implement those decisions under supervision of the others. This is what is called a workers’ council.
On a Knife’s Edge

In the early weeks of 1933, the situation in Germany was on a knife’s edge. The Nazis were approaching power, yet millions of workers were still organized in left-wing parties and trade unions opposing them.In the early weeks of 1933, the Nazis were approaching power, yet millions of workers were still organized opposing them.

Communist propaganda was a mixture of bravado and ominous warnings. On February 1, 1933, the KPD paper Rote Fahne carried the headline “Storm over Germany!” and claimed that the working class was in a state of feverish activity. However, there was no mass resistance when Hitler was appointed chancellor on January 30 and the Nazis began to install their dictatorship.

Van der Lubbe wanted to see the situation for himself and traveled to Berlin. He arrived in a country where the two main workers’ parties, the Social Democrats (SPD) and the KPD, were unable to organize effective resistance to the rise of Nazism. Both underestimated the danger posed by Hitler in power and both lacked an adequate analysis of fascism.

As the German socialist historian Wolfgang Abendroth later observed, the SPD “stuck its head under the sand while fascism grew,” comforting itself with the mantra ‘‘Germany is not Italy.” The party leadership believed that a possible Hitler dictatorship might follow the precedent of Otto von Bismarck’s anti-socialist laws in the nineteenth century, when the state had banned socialist publications but respected the immunity of SPD parliamentarians from prosecution and allowed individual socialists to run in elections.

Attempting to defend the Weimar Republic, the SPD increasingly abandoned the struggle for social and political rights. From 1930 onward, it gave toleration in the Reichstag to the government of Heinrich Brüning, who would otherwise have been unable to stay in power. This enabled Brüning to ignore parliament and rule by decree as he imposed deep cuts to public spending that worsened the current economic depression.In 1932, the SPD supported the right-wing nationalist Paul von Hindenburg in the presidential election.

In 1932, the SPD supported the right-wing nationalist Paul von Hindenburg in the presidential election. Hindenburg rewarded them for their votes by backing a coup that removed the Social Democrats from their stronghold in the regional government of Prussia. Shortly afterward, he appointed Hitler as chancellor.

The Social Democrats refused to join the KPD in a general strike against the coup in Prussia or in response to Hitler’s appointment. The SPD leadership declared it would not be the first to “leave the sphere of the constitution and legality” and instead filed a motion of distrust against Hitler. By doing so, the SPD leaders avoided a dangerous and bloody struggle against fascism, at the cost of much greater bloodshed a little further down the line.

Dissolving Like a Sugar Cube

For its part, the KPD was a determined opponent of the Nazis and prepared for a period of illegality. However, it also underestimated the terror that was to come. The KPD expected the Nazi movement to quickly fall apart because of the contradictory interests running through it. Leading Communists referred to Brüning’s rule as already representing “fascism,” which suggested that Hitler’s accession to power would make little difference.The KPD expected the Nazi movement to quickly fall apart because of the contradictory interests running through it.

The KPD’s attitude toward the SPD was based on Stalin’s concept of “social fascism,” according to which social democracy in a country like Germany played a similar role to Italian fascism by repressing the working class and ensuring the survival of capitalism. This false theory justified sectarian hostility to Social Democrats and stood in the way of joint action against Nazism.

Visiting Berlin in late 1932, the Argentinian revolutionary Hippolyte Etchebéhère described what he encountered:

Confusion, disarray, an utter lack of confidence in their party and in their leaders . . . And beneath our very eyes the formidable German Communist Party, Berlin’s premier party, the most powerful section of the Communist International, dissolved like a sugar-cube in water.

Van der Lubbe observed similar helplessness. He attended rallies organized by the SPD and the KPD that the police broke up without meeting resistance. Meanwhile, Nazi stormtroopers marched through the streets unhindered.

After his arrest in the Reichstag, Van der Lubbe explained what motivated him. The new German government, he stated, meant continuing oppression of the working class and war. He had seen already how the Nazis were limiting the freedoms of workers and their organizations, but he believed that the workers were not ready to act without approval from their leaders: “In my opinion, something needed to be done to protest against this system.” He decided to set fire to a building associated with the state.

Van der Lubbe insisted he had acted alone: “No one has helped me with this.” However, the Reichstag fire became the ideal pretext for the Nazis to tighten their grip on power. In addition to arresting Van der Lubbe, the police apprehended Ernst Torgler (the chairman of the KPD faction in the Reichstag) and three Bulgarian communists, Blagoy Popov, Vasil Tanev, and Georgi Dimitrov, accusing them of participating in a conspiracy to seize power by force.

The Nazis used the supposed threat of a communist revolution to justify the elimination of civil liberties. They arrested thousands of their opponents, most of whom were communists, and put them in concentration camps. Dozens were killed right away.

The Brown Book

Suspicions quickly arose that the Nazis had started the fire themselves. The Brown Book of the Reichstag Fire and Hitler Terror appeared to confirm those suspicions. It was published in August 1933 by the World Committee for the Victims of German Fascism, a project of Willi Münzenberg, the brilliant propagandist of the Communist International.

The Brown Book mixed facts about the brutality of the Nazis with fiction about a Nazi conspiracy involving Van der Lubbe, adding a large dollop of character assassination to the mix. Van der Lubbe, according to the Brown Book, was a “tool” of the Nazis. It made him out to be a vain, attention-seeking figure and a habitual liar.The Brown Book mixed facts about the brutality of the Nazis with fiction about a Nazi conspiracy involving Marinus Van der Lubbe.

In a sentence that was omitted from the English-language version, the Brown Book described Van der Lubbe as a patsy who “at the latest in the final months of 1932, had succumbed to National Socialist temptations” and was manipulated by the Nazis to take the blame for arson committed by their stormtroopers.

Another passage left out of the English translation depicted Van der Lubbe as someone who was homosexual “in his whole essence”:

His character is feminine, his reserve and shyness in front of women is established by the testimony of many, his need for closeness and tenderness from men is notorious.

All versions of the Brown Book insisted that Van der Lubbe’s alleged sexuality provided the link with the Nazis.

It was well-known that Ernst Röhm, the head of the Sturmabteilung (SA) paramilitary squad, was homosexual. The Brown Book claimed that the Dutch council communist had been one of Röhm’s lovers. The German-language version labeled Van der Lubbe a Lustknape — a “pleasure boy.” The supposed proof of Van der Lubbe’s complicity and the role of the SA presented in the Brown Book and in the campaign that followed later turned out to be fake.

In the Netherlands, a small group of Van der Lubbe’s comrades came to his defense. They published a Roodboek that included statements from various radicals who had known Van der Lubbe, as well as his diary and letters. But their efforts could not match the Münzenberg propaganda machine.

“A Miserable Faustus”

Much was made of Van der Lubbe’s conduct during the trial. He was mostly silent, his head sunk onto his chest. He struck a pathetic figure, seemingly unable to wipe his nose.

Was he perhaps being drugged to prevent him from revealing the truth? Surely his behavior showed that he was at best a fool, unable to answer for his actions. So the speculation went from observers of the proceedings.

Van der Lubbe’s behavior also surprised his Dutch comrades, who had expected him to take the opportunity to explain what he had done. It contrasted strikingly with the conduct of Georgi Dimitrov. An experienced leader with a record as a parliamentarian and trade union organizer, Dimitrov eloquently defended himself. Following what was now the Comintern line, he also attacked Van der Lubbe as the tool of the Nazis, a “miserable Faustus.”A comrade who saw pictures of Van der Lubbe in court, with his silent, sunken head, remarked that this is what a defeated working class looks like.

However, when we take Van der Lubbe’s situation into account, his behavior was not so mysterious. On March 29, the Nazis introduced the Lex Lubbe — a law that imposed the death penalty for his action. Van der Lubbe had not been afraid of jail, but now he faced execution.

Meanwhile, as the months went by, it must have become clear to him that his action had resulted in no positive effect. Most of the Left abandoned him and he found himself attacked not only by the Nazis but also by his codefendants. A comrade who saw pictures of Van der Lubbe in court, with his silent, sunken head, remarked that this is what a defeated working class looks like.

Van der Lubbe’s silence was a refusal to participate in the charade. At times, confronted by what for him must have been incredible stories, Van der Lubbe broke out in laughter. When he did speak, he repeated the message that he alone had set the Reichstag on fire, insisting that his codefendants were innocent.

Despite all the attempts by the Nazis, there was no evidence to prove that Van der Lubbe was part of a conspiracy. The legal system had not yet been completely subordinated to the Nazi state at this point. On December 23, 1933, the court finally decided to acquit Torgler, Popov, Tanev, and Dimitrov. Only Van der Lubbe was found guilty and sentenced to death. Hitler was furious, feeling humiliated by Dimitrov and what he called “senile judges.” He would never permit a court to disobey his wishes again.

In the early morning of January 10, 1934, a silent, seemingly calm Van der Lubbe went to the guillotine. He would have turned twenty-five three days later.

Remembering Van der Lubbe

The controversy over Van der Lubbe’s role briefly resurged in 2019 when journalists reported a new finding that supposedly proved the existence of a Nazi conspiracy to burn down the Reichstag. In 1955, Hans-Martin Lennings, a former SA member, had filed a statement with a notary that he and several other stormtroopers had transported Van der Lubbe into a burning Reichstag.

In fact, people had known about this statement for decades. Over the years, several proponents of the theory that the Nazis were responsible for the fire had made oblique references to the statement, without publishing it or revealing the name of its author.

They obviously had doubts about the credibility of Lennings, who had suffered serious brain trauma in 1930 after a fight with communists. He tried to have himself committed to a mental hospital during the Third Reich and had difficulty distinguishing fact from fiction, according to his close relatives.

In any case, the statement was contradicted by witnesses who had seen Van der Lubbe loitering around the Reichstag before the fire. In his recent book The Hitler Conspiracies, historian Richard Evans went over the available evidence yet again, concluding that Van der Lubbe had indeed spoken the truth.

Van der Lubbe was mistaken in his assessment of the political situation in Germany at the beginning of 1933, and in his expectations of what might result from his action. But those mistakes surely pale in comparison to the abject stupidity of the KPD and SPD leaders who obstructed united action against the rise of Nazism.

The arson unquestionably played into the hands of the Nazis. However, if it had never happened, they would no doubt have found — or made — another excuse for imposing their dictatorship. Van der Lubbe’s sincerity led to his death. We can recognize his error while remembering him as a working-class revolutionary.

CONTRIBUTOR
Alex de Jong is editor of the socialist journal Grenzeloos and an activist in the Netherlands.


Mar 29, 2007 — Philippe Bourrinet on the reaction of council communists in Holland to Marinus Van der Lubbe burning down the Reichstag in Germany, ...