Hitler & Saddam

Great Debates
21

One might argue that the reparations imposed on Germany post The Great War led to an economic crisis that facilitated the rise of the Nazi party and Adolf Hitler.

A parallel - though rather a shaky one - might then be drawn 2i5h the sanctions on Iraq imposing such extreme economic hardship that the populace have become too weakened and impoverished to bring about the exit of the Baath party and Saddam Hussein.

The critical issue for me was that Hitler was expansionist, and he had to be checked.

Before the Gulf War Saddam was expansionist, and he had to be checked.

That is not the case for this war. Saddam has not been expansionist nor aggressive outside his own borders. His treatment of his own people may be worse than satanic, but so is the treatment of many people by many other dodgy administrations around the world, but the US isn’t trying to invade them. It all rests on the possibility/probability that he might do this in the future. But so might around a dozen other countries.

22

Partly. But that was how things were done. America didn’t like sanctions then or in '91. In fact, we wanted to fix the problem then. Stupid French screwed it up both times. :slight_smile:

23

Everyone always wants to compare evildoers to Hitler. Yeah, Sadam has some more powerful weapons, but it’s all relative. Germany was a military superpower in it’s time. Iraq is not (in it’s time). Germany had citizens cheering (Austria, Sudetenland) when they invaded-- can you imagine even an Arab nation doing that if Iraq invaded? Hitler had dreams of conquering ALL of Europe (and then some) and had a shot at it if he had kept his deal with Stalin. Iraq tried to annex Kuwait and got squashed in 2 weeks.

I would defer, though, to my elders on this. Esp those who lived in Eruope during WWII. I’d find it hard to imagine any Europeans agreeing that S.H. is comparable to A.H. other than the initials of their surnames. Sadam is evil, evil, evil. But he’s a pipsqueak. We could get Hans and Franz to “squeeze his puny head bewtween their massive thighs” if we wanted.

24

Not entirely correct.
Hitler wanted a shot at Stalin. Poland was in the way. IIRC, Hitler asked Poland for passage. This was first granted but then retracted. Plus there was the question of Danzig. That’s why Poland was invaded, to gain access to the Soviet Union, the arch-enemy.
Hitler didn’t want war with France and England (in particular), they declared war on him. The invasion of Denmark and Norway was prompted by the despatching of a Franco-British invasion force to Norway. The Germans got there first but only just.

The Allied plan was to strike through Belgium, with the BEF as main driving force. The Germans pre-empted this by outflanking the BEF, by conquering Holland. A similtanuous strike through the Ardennes isolated the Northern allied armies and bypassed the Maginot line.

It’s a big if, whether there would have been a war in Western Europe, had England and France not declared war on Germany.
That is, of course, not to say that they were wrong in doing so.

25

Now remember Sadam was in power before the sanctions, Hitler was a result of the repairations and the precieved wrong done to Germany. Hitler came in on popular support where as Saddam took his power in a coup.

Yes Both are/were dictators

Yes they both have silly moustaches and tend to be a little meglominaical when it comes to busts, statutes and paintings of them.

But really there is little that is a parallel to the situation in fact the lessons of the former seem to prevent the later from esculating for the immediate need for war.

Hitler was never contained, just the oposite. He made noises about how unfair Germany was treated and the Allies agreed. he marched his troops into the demiliterized Rhineland and because the French did not move their troops to drive him out he was validated.

Sadam’s No Fly Zone has been challenged several times and each and every time it has been met with force. He has never been able to regain any real control of that territory

Hitler Originally attempted to Annex countries based on an idea of a Pan Germanism (Austria and Nothern Czechoslovakia and the Dnazig in Poland) Once war was declared after the invasion of Poland he expanded his goals to his original dream of Liebenstraum to the East and the destruction of the Soviet Union.

Sadam’s Expansionistic goals are based not on ethnic grounds but on economic grounds (larger control of oil fields) He doesn’t envision the rise of a large Pan Persian nation or Pan Muslim world either. rememebr he was at war against his Persian Muslim neighbour Iran for 8 years.
Hitler Annexed Austria (relatively) peacefully and no one blinked. There was Unease but traditionally Germany and Austria were Germainc people that were similar enough to not cause too much of a problem.

Sadam spent eight years at war with Iran and no one did a thing, in fact the Powers that be supported this as a good thing. A secular Government at war against an evil Theocracy which had teh gaul to kidnap American Citizens and drive out the American backed Shaw was seen to be a blow for democracy.

When Hiltler threatened to attack Czechoslovakia the Britsh and French to avoid conflict gave him the North, When he continued to secure it by attacking the Southern part of the country which had been emascualted by the two powers. Britain and France were too busy touting “Peace in our time” to do anything

When Sadam Marched into Kuwaiit He was ordered out by the UN and The Coillition drove him out by force.

Hitler saw Britain and France’s lack of action as a sign of their weakness, he tested it one last time with a gamble for Poland. It failed and World War II broke out.

Saddam has never been given a chance since 1991 to continue any expansionist policies, Iraq is contained and is unlikely to be able to do anything as it is under close scrutiny.

Hitler was Hitler because no one stood up to him to say no. Without resistence he kept pushing and pushing until the world was forced to strike back. Plus he also had (at that time) one of the most modern armies in the world.

Saddam is a tin pot dictator who is bottled up in his ever decreasing sphere of influence. His airforce is practically non existant and his army is sadly lacking and its best days are behind them. Is he a threat to the world? I doubt it so long as pressure is kept up until eventual total disarmament.

Both men are gamblers and could not be trusted to act in accordence to World wishes unless there was an adequate threat of force to keep them in check.

That’s how I see it you decide if they are the same man.