|
Today's Hitler and Mussolini...Saddam, or George and Tony?
March 28, 2003
I probably know as much about the European aspect of WW2 as most historians, as it's a passion of mine. In fact, I just finished rereading Shirer's Rise and Fall of the Third Reich a couple of weeks ago for the third time. The parallels between Bush's buildup and eventual invasion (the countless outright lies, the preset date for invasion, the fact that the victim was itself a repressive, undemocratic regime that had recently partaken of the spoils during Hitler's rape of Czechoslovakia as Saddam was only too grateful of US help in his war with Iran, the list of future victims (in Hitler's case, published in Mein Kampf; in Bush's case, printed in the world's newspapers under "Axis of Evil"), the obvious hope that the victim wouldn't cooperate too much before the preset date, (thereby spoiling the chance for an invasion), the crushing military superiority of the invader over the invaded, the disdain by the powerful invader for world opinion as expressed through a world body...present similarities that are eery and tragic, even ironic, as supporters of this unprovoked aggression attempt to cast the victim in the role of Adolph Hitler, who was a megalomaniac with aspirations of...gee, world domination!!! along the lines of Genghis Khan, Alexander the Great and Napoleon.
There are, of course, many dissimilarities. Unlike the USA at present, (and who can accuse them of wanting to dominate the world?), Hitler did not in 1939 have huge numbers of armed forces stationed all around the world. Nor did he have the financial resources to either threaten or bribe countries small or large to fall in line with his plans of conquest. Poland had some German minorities, and more importantly land, that Hitler wanted for Germany, while Iraq has 27% of the planet's oil reserves and a leader downright unfriendly to the US and Israel. Unfortunately for Hitler, his victim had allies, bound by treaties to respond with assistance to unprovoked attack on Poland, although he thought it unlikely that they would honour those treaties. Saddam, on the other hand, has no friends, no treaties of mutual aid, else I doubt that the courageous Bush and Blair would have gone ahead with this war. Their obvious strategy is to take the unallied members of the "Axis of Evil" one at a time. Iran might as well be next, since the war machine is in the area. I'm curious to see how they are going to deal with North Korea, whose leaders with obvious glee remember the primary lesson of the Korean War... that there are endless millions of Chinese troops who will immediately flood across the Yalu on the occasion of a foreign invasion of North Korea. Perhaps George will solve that with a few nuclear bombs; after all, as the only entity on earth ever to use that particular weapon of mass destruction (and twice, on civilian targets), and whose citizens (at least the Republican variety) still apparently overwhelmingly believe their use is justified if it saves American lives (the only lives worth saving, so no other country can ever justify using those weapons), and as soon as "Star Wars" protects the USA from incoming nukes, who needs to risk losing a war by being beaten in the field by a superior enemy?
Saddam's similar to Hitler, all right...he's a nasty man with a big black moustache. Unfortunately, the more relevant similarities are found in the extreme right wing of the Republican Party of the freedomlovin', libertylovin' US of A. Not to be confused with the Canadian Alliance Party.
Yours for historical discussion in the safety of North America while oil-laden third-world brownskinned nonChristian people sympathetic to the cause of the Palestinians fight off a powerful invader,
Steve
•
More Belligerent Rad/Red Self Righteous Rant
March 30, 2003
That's more like the ___ I know and love. I'm not really interested in reading some one else's excuses for this unprovoked aggression - I read enough of them in the newspapers - but DO appreciate hearing your views directly. I've got (and read) Truman's book "Plain Speaking" and Eisenhower's "Crusade in Europe", and I, too, admire Harry's guts in dealing with the megalomaniacal Macarthur, and admire as well Ike's generalship in leading the 1944/45 Western Front against Hitler, among other military feats, if not particularly his politics. I believe, however, even as one raised in childhood to accept the bombs dropped oon Hiroshima and Nagasaki as necessary actions for the successful conclusion of the Pacific War, that to accept the American use of nuclear weapons ON CIVILIANS as justified is to accept that others might have justifications equally rational in their eyes for their own use of such weapons, possibly even against Americans or Canadians. When I drop the concept of nationality and think of myself as a human resident of earth, I can think of no excuse now or ever for the use of nuclear weapons.
I'd really like to hear just how Saddam is such an undoubted threat to the USA, rather than the other way around. Picture this scenario: A foreign power, many times more technologically advanced than the USA, controls the air above two thirds of the USA. It also has military bases and many thousands of troops, all of whom have been training for the last decade or two for war in a North American environment, in many countries (most of whom have been bought off by that extremely wealthy foreign power) surrounding the USA. As well, because of their ill-advised and unsuccessful takeover attempt a decade earlier of Mexico over a border dispute, the USA has been brought down by a trade embargo from a first world standard of living to a third world standard, and has had a substantial portion of its military capabilities taken away or destroyed. Strangely, after this powerful foreign country suffers an internal attack by white, Christian "terrorists" who have no connection with the USA other than a hatred for that same foreign country, the foreign country declares that George Bush has got to go, mounts a campaign of lies (weapons of mass destruction, links to the terrorists, etc), and, after getting the USA to destroy a few more missiles, lines up a significant military ally that would really like to share in the USA'S undoubted wealth of resources, buys/threatens a few more non-fighting allies, ignores the United Nations (which is only useful if it approves the aims of that foreign country, and a meanless anachronism if it doesn't) and the advice of many of its longtime friends and allies, and invades the USA, after bombing the bejesus out of it from skies conveniently empty of defender airplanes, while wrapping itself in the flags and rhetoric of freedom and liberty. And then has its spin doctors comparing George Bush to Adolph Hitler! Unfortunately for the USA, George has been such an asshole over the last few decades, he and the USA have no allies anywhere in the world. American citizens (except members of the Republican Party) were expected to rise up against Bush and join hands with the invaders, but, surprisingly, don't.
Ridiculous and impossible as such a scenario may be (at least in our lifetime), that, with a different cast, is the way I see it playing out in the Middle East right now. Simplistic and with many details left out, yes, but the essential situation. The thing is, the USA is invading Iraq right now because it can, just as Hitler invaded Poland in 1939 because he could. He just didn't think of beggaring Poland, partially disarming it, and enforcing a no-fly zone over most of it for a decade before he invaded.
I guess it is radical socialism to believe that unprovoked invasions of sovereign nations by superpowers, or any powers, are immoral, except in cases of humanitarian aid while genocide is occurring (eg holocaust, ethnic cleansing, etc). Certainly the right in both the US and Canada have been revealed lately to have no such moral qualms. Interestingly, I don't recall Bush claiming that such genocidal events were happening, although, in common with many world leaders NOT in possession of a strategically important amount of oil reserves, Saddam does have a murderous history, including a failed attempt to assassinate George Sr. Gee, what a stroke of luck for those top far-right republicans to find an (almost) electable candidate for Prez who wanted to avenge a murder attempt by Saddam on his daddy!
Horrendous as the events at the World Trade Centre were, they don't give the US the right to take over any country they feel like. I hate to say it, but that catastrophe is being exploited by the White House to manipulate normal Americans into backing military adventures that have been on the radical right's agenda for some time, and I'm thinking Americans are someday going to look back on these adventures with a sense of shame similar to their feelings (I hope most of them feel this way, anyway) about the tragic and immoral Vietnamese adventure. "The domino theory" was the lie of the 60's, just as "weapons of mass destruction" and "links to Al Qaeda" are but two of the current lies to cast Saddam as a danger to the US. Kinda like the Battleship calling the rowboat "a ship of mass destruction with links to Destroyers".
I love Wayne Gretzky's comment, that he trusted George to do the correct thing. I guess I'm just a cynic...I don't trust politicians, right OR left, to be doing the correct thing, even when they SEEM to be. At the moment, I don't understand how even a hockey player with an ounce of insight thinks this invasion is about freedom, liberty, or anything remotely correct, unless he subscribes to the theory that MIGHT IS RIGHT. And, only too obviously, the people who currently own the control and power in our friendly neighbour to the south not only subscribe, they're exercising that theory. Let's kick his ass and grab his gas. I wish I could say it's the first, or the last, such immoral military adventure in the US's colourful history, but...
I do go on.
Great to have someone "not in the choir" to preach to. I think my relatives share my point of view- no fun at all.
Fondly
Steve
•
From: "Steve and Twyla Nicholson"
Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003
Hi, Erin
Interesting stuff!
Sure, you (or Jason) can always publish my thoughts...just make sure any names of my correspondents are omitted. I enjoyed reading the other essay on comparisons between Bush and Hitler. As I recall, all I was comparing were the preliminaries to war, but there are certainly many other similarities...the Reichstag fire/World Trade Building attacks was a great example I hadn't thought of.
Love
Dad and Twyla
|
|
2000-2009 Jason 'Sunshine' Carswell.
