It is absolutely eerie how closely the current Iraq
situation parallels the rise of The Third Reich 70 years
ago.
I consider Saddam Hussein to be "Hitler lite" because
he has the same virulent anti-semitism, the same
callous disregard for human life, and the identical lust
for power that Adolf possessed.
The only difference between the two villains is the size
of the moustache.
Back in the 1930's, millions the world over simply did
not want to think about the evil that Hitler was brewing
up.
France and Russia were the chief appeasers, as they
are today on the Iraq question.
Stalin ultimately signed a treaty with Hitler making it
possible for him to use most of his forces to crush
Europe, and France simply allowed Hitler to violate the
Treaty of Versailles, even more than the 17 times
Saddam has violated current UN mandates.
Britain went along with France in the '30's, but now it
seems the UK has learned from its historical mistakes.
And then there's the Pope. John Paul II recently came
out and said that any war against Iraq would be
"immoral."
Back in the '30's, Pope Pius XII actually supported Hitler
politically, at least in the beginning of his rise when
Pius was stationed in Germany.
The Third Reich was considered a bulwark against
Communism, which the Church greatly feared.
Subsequently, Pius kept quiet about the atrocities of
Hitler's regime because he knew that the Vatican itself
could easily be vanquished by the Huns.
Today, John Paul deplores the violence that comes
with any war but is at a loss to explain how terrorism
and the states that enable it should be dealt with.
Remember, the Pope did not approve of the military
action against the Taliban.
Peace, of course, should be the goal of all civilized
human beings. Millions of Americans are against a war
in Iraq today and millions of us were vehemently
opposed to confronting Hitler as well.
Back then the anti-war movement was led by Charles
Lindbergh and Ambassador Joseph Kennedy who
largely dismissed accusations of Nazi brutality and
weapons production as propaganda.
In 1937, SS Chief Henrich Himmler was even on the
cover of Time Magazine. I have the issue.
The article criticized Himmler and hinted at barbaric
behavior, but there was no "smoking gun."
The failure to confront the obvious evil of the Nazis
early, of course, led to the deaths of more than 55
million human beings in Europe. Millions of Jews were
stunned when they were led by German guards to the
gas chambers.
How could human beings do this?
Even after evidence of mass executions surfaced, many
the world over refused to believe it. Liberating
American soldiers were horrified at what they found in
the concentration camps.
Most had no idea of what they were really fighting
against.
Does anyone today believe that Al Qaeda or Saddam
would not slaughter Jews and, indeed, Americans if
they had the power to do so?
So what is the difference between a dictator like
Saddam and Adolph Hitler?
It continues to astound me that 37% of Americans,
according to the latest ABC News/Washington Post
poll, do not support the removal of Saddam Hussein
unless other countries, which do not share our danger,
sign on.
I mean, why allow a dictator who has weapons that
would make Hitler salivate, remain a threat to the
world?
Does it make sense that Cameroon has to sign on
before we neutralize this threat?
If France, Germany, China, and Russia would support
the United States against Saddam, he'd already be out
of power. If France, Russia, and Britain had marched
into Germany in 1933 there would have been no World
War or Holocaust.
Nobody can predict the outcome and aftermath of any
war. But we can learn from history. Evil has a way of
killing people, that's a fact.
And the only way that evil will be stopped, is for just and
courageous people to confront it.