Hitler & Saddam

I am quite underinformed about the events leading up to and constituting World War II. I was hoping that those who have spent more time in study of that period might be able to add some comment aboutthis article and its interpretation of the events of the period.

If the author is reasonably correct in his interpretation of those events, I think that it certainly does help to provide some perspective on the events in Iraq.

Hitler’s Germany wasn’t occupied by foreign troops and bombed by Americans at-will.
Hitler’s Germany wasn’t subjected to a decade long international embargo.

There’s more for sure.

And so you are suggesting that Saddam is more likely to look for a chance to vindicate his regime? I don’t see how your points fit into the (possibly false) statement that Saddam and the current scenario are enough like Hitler and pre-WWII that a comparison can be made.

Both Germany & Iraq were forced to disarm after they lost a major war, and neither did. Thats a similiarity that was overlooked.

All in all, i guess the text is believable but the premise is manipulative (how can i compare my countries current political enemies to a major tyrant). Many of those statements would probably apply to a multitude of dictators which either are in power now or were in power. A cult of personality & a willingness to expand borders with war. That would probably apply to many countries, not just the one we currently aren’t getting along with.

That pretty much says it for me. Oh, and what the C of L said.

The rest of the quote is

And your point is?

I agreed with the part that I quoted. That was why I quoted it. If I had agreed with the rest of the quote, then I would have quoted it. But I didn’t agree with it, so I didn’t quote it.

So what’s your point? Other than to be annoying?

december misses the point, as usual (and probably deliberately). Comparisons between Hitler and Hussein, or between the prelude to World War II and out current situation, are pretty silly and have enough holes to make some pretty decent cheese out of. Those who make such comparisons seriously seem to be grasping at straws (ooh, look, both their last names start with H!).

The Calculus of Logic has it right… the point fo the article seems to be manipulation rather than factual comparison. Marcus Gee pretty much Godwinized* himself right out of the gate. There’s a good chance the OP did as well.

  • Well, soneone had to say it.

To clarify Wiesel’s position vis a vis war in Iraq. The single sentence you quoted might have misled readers into thinking he did not support it.

Also, the additional sentences were relevant to the OP, which mentioned, “perspective on the events in Iraq.”

[quotel]
Both Germany & Iraq were forced to disarm after they lost a major war, and neither did. Thats a similiarity that was overlooked.
[/quote]

Simply not true, Germany did disarm. It started rearming in 1933 when a certain short man with a funny moustache became Chancellor.

To respond to some of the holes in the argument.

Hitler’s annexation of Czech and Rhineland was justified (by him) as they were germans being forced to be ruled by minorities.Pretty flimsy in today’s world but back then it wasn’t that big of a deal (to go to war over).A comparable Iraq situation exists with the Kurds in the north today,but nobody’s suggested going to war over that issue.

Even Bush’s “regime change” has more to do,in his rhetoric,with getting a bombmaker off the throne.
Secondly the military parity of the parties involved back then wasn’t even close to today’s scenario.Nobody questioned Germany’s troops’ abilities to fight,nor their armament to be effective.Going too soon then could have had the same result as '39,'40.Today our armaments and manpower can wipe Iraq off the map,if so inclined.Do you seriously think in some measure of years SH can come even close to that capability?

Remember the allied countries were engaged in a depression and butter was a much more discussed topic than guns.As late as 1940 the US was reported to be practicing war games with the equivalent of sticks and stones-the equipment wasn’t there.The biggest reason Germany had the jump on us.A dictatorshp that bought guns first,and confiscated the wealth of some of the populace to do so.

Which brings the “Jewish question” vis a is SH to mind.On a moral plane one’s no better than the other.

But on a practical plane,remember there was no UN,or widely circulated media attention to the plights of worldwide minority groups.Or even a broadbased opinion on how to treat some of these same groups in our contries.We were a much more conservative and isolated people,and struggling with depression our main focus was our food and shelter.Who was going to care what some German was doing over there.

And just as today,politicians only keep their jobs when appealing to their costituents worries.FDR,for all his New Deal programs,which struck fear in the business (read Repub) community,were still passed because of that nature.He would have been laughed off the Congress floor if he would have presented bills designed to allieve some foreign nations problems.He didn’t even try to advance a civil rights reform despite his wife’s nagging because of this same apathy.

Better to compare Saddam with Mussolini.Another toothless tiger.

Saddam is a cynic, and Hitler was a fanatic. Lenin was a fanatic, and Stalin was a cynic. Osama bin Laden is a fanatic, the cynic Saddam knows this. They are natural enemies.

The history books are full of 'em, anybody’s guess which is worse.

Perhaps if S.H. had the the reasources of Germany and was surrounded by other 1st world type countries that he could invade and add to his arsenal, there might be similarities. As things are, S.H. is a midget. A very evil midget who has done some horrible things, but he ain’t no Hitler. He couldn’t be if he wanted to.

The analogy is not perfect, because as you say, Saddam is no Hitler. But on the other hand, Hitler was no Saddam, either. Hitler never had weapons so terrible that he could sneak one into his enemy’s country and do the equivalent amount of damage as a six month WWII bombing campaign in one blow. Hitler did not have an extended network of hidden shock troops throughout the world willing to die to kill his enemy. But where the network of terrorism and rogue states intersects, that’s exactly what you have.

It’s a different time. The threats are different. And while Saddam Hussein is not anywhere near the threat to America’s military as Hitler was, he is a far greater threat to the American citizenry, who were never threatened in any way by Adolph Hitler.

Note that I’m not suggesting that Saddam has a nuclear bomb. But if he is not stopped now, one day he will.

Americans weren’t threatened by Hitler?

I’d say the whole world was, just by how evil he was. Saddam doesn’t even come close.

Germany did have a large arsenal of chemical weapons.
The fear of them being used was very real, everybody was carrying gasmasks during the Blitz, remember.
Hitler thought it too terrible a weapon and never used it.
Neither has Saddam, to my knowledge.

Neither does Saddam have anything like that.

Referring to the Gulf war, of course.

“Hitler did not have an extended network of hidden shock troops throughout the world willing to die to kill his enemy”

As if intercontinental drones armed with nuclear anthrax wasn’t enough! Duct and cover! The Saddamites are coming! AAAAArrrrroooooooga! AAAArrrrooooooooga!

Balderdash, sir! Tommyrot!

Yes it was, just in reverse order. American planes smashed Germany from the air for two years, with dwindling German resistance. Then we occupied it. Like we should have done in '91 and will do now.

I have to disagree with Weisel about Hitler. Saddam may not [yet] be in Hitler’s league, but his evil is certainly equivelant, if of a different brand.