Nazi history should serve as a warning to Hong Kong: orchestrated violence breeds more violence

How I wish the inauspicious feelings I expressed in my letter to the Post on July 26 were incorrect. Unfortunately, they have become reality over the past weeks: the violent protests in Hong Kong have escalated into the use of petrol bombs; the Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office has held four press conferences, unprecedented since 1997; law and order has been further eroded despite a court injunction on protesters at the airport; and the editorials of Beijing’s mouthpiece Xinhua and Global Times have categorised the protest as a “colour revolution” to overthrow the “one country, two system” paradigm.

Reading history, one has a stunning sense of déjà vu. Niall Ferguson’s Kissinger, 1923-1968: The Idealist describes events in Germany in early 1932 when, after police restrictions were lifted, the National Socialist German Workers’ Party (Nazi Party), held almost weekly events in Fürth, organising at least 26 meetings in the two weeks before the election of that year.

While initially firearms played no role in the gang warfare between the communists and Nazis, eventually people, longing for the old German ideal of “tranquility and order”, accepted that further violence might be necessary as a means to that end. Sounds familiar?

On the night of February 3, 1933, some Nazi radicals attacked a communist. After the Reichstag fire later that month, a Nazi landtag deputy proclaimed the “German Revolution”. (Sounds familiar again?) What followed was a series of catastrophes.

I am not implying that any parties in Hong Kong are like the Nazi Party, but pointing out that the masterstroke of social movements is nothing new: orchestrated violence breeds more violence to dismantle the existing law and order. This cycle is only reinforced in the era of Facebook, LIHKG and Telegram.

I still believe freedom of speech, responsibly exercised, remains a core value of Hong Kong and I respect all peaceful protests. However, after 13 weeks, the clash of political ideologies, Hongkongers’ ambiguous identity, the imperfect transfer of wealth to marginal social groups, the hijacking by violent radicals of the movement from the majority who have been striving to preserve Hong Kong’s core values peacefully, and the catalyst of the pro-democracy camp and some biased media are helping to destroy the city under the banner of “We love Hong Kong”. It is time Lam’s administration, all political parties and those who genuinely treasure Hong Kong’s core values unite and find a sustainable solution.

If not now, when? If not Hongkongers, who?

Qiwei Weng, West Kowloon