I’d like to spit out a bit of a rant concerning the ‘parallels’ being drawn between Hitler’s Germany and Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. First of all, the majority of Germany’s citizens were behind Der Führer, at least enough until it was too late. It would be hard to imagine the majority of those in Iraq, including the Kurds in the north and the Shias in the south, not wishing and hoping for a better alternative to their Western-installed, brutally oppressive and destructive socialist dictator (perhaps they might have earned better for themselves, had Dubya’s dad not pulled the rug out from under them).

Second, there is much flapping from right-wing pundits about how a strategy of “appeasement” of Saddam Hussein will have the same results as the “appeasement” of Adolf Hitler. This is a ridiculous attempt at analogy, primarily because Saddam Hussein’s war machine is a mere shadow of what it was before the first Gulf War, and Hussein poses a far greater threat to his own people than to anyone else. Also, Adolf Hitler and the Germans were not “appeased” because the powers of Western Europe were afraid to take action. A comprehensive look at the history of the world in the decades between the two world wars will show you that the U.S., France, Britain, and others had used their victories in the First World War as a springboard for strengthening their holds on their respective colonial holdings. Germany had been cast as the scapegoat of that first conflict, and had been subjected to smothering and humiliating sanctions, not the least of which was giving up her colonial territories, along with the military wherewithal to conquer any more. Another, more general way of looking at the issue is this: the previous three centuries had largely consisted of the Western European powers (along with their North American sibling, the U.S.) conquering and divvying up the rest of the world, and solidifying their hold on their conquered ‘posessions.’ The first two world wars were, among other things, a fight between the colonial powers, some rising and some fading, over greater control of the colonial plunder. The point of this historical recap is to illustrate that Hitler’s Germany was “appeased” because the rest of the white-dominated world was more intent on keeping its collective foot on the subjugated brown masses than it was in dealing with the problem in its own backyard (or across the Atlantic, in the case of the U.S.). This is also why Stalin, the ideological blood enemy of Hitler, chose to sign a non-aggression pact with his nemesis; he (Stalin) and his henchmen were occupied in the ‘reshaping’ of their own nation to deal with Nazi Germany. In short, the nations that had the ability to stand up to the obvious evil of Nazi Germany chose not to bother, because they were too busy maintaining their own realms of oppression.

Hussein’s Iraq poses no such threat to the world. In the sickest of ironies, the only possible threat that Hussein might pose to anyone outside his own borders would be constructed of components purchased from the United States, indeed purchased with the blessing of the U.S. government.

Given the anemic and rotating rationalizations for this impending slaughter, especially considering the source, it begs the question: just who is the “Hitler” of this situation?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s