« Questions, Questions | Main | Your World In Charts: Rising Populism Edition »
November 06, 2007
In Which I Rail Against Hitler Analogies, Then Use One
Over at TAP, Justin Logan delivers 20 lashes to the scores of Hitler-invoking hawks who keep demeaning Munich and trivializing Adolph in service of bombing Iran. I sort of think folks miss the point of the Hitler analogies, though: They're not about the danger, but the glory. When Podhoretz compares Ahmadinejad to Hitler, he's doing less to analogize the threats they posed than to underscore how deeply righteous and honorable a war with Iran would be. Everyone wants to lead the next Greatest Generation.
Beyond that, I like Logan's points as to how much weaker today's threats are:
the gap between a Saddam Hussein or an Ali Khamenei and Adolf Hitler is enormous. All of the supposed modern day Hitlers have presided over sclerotic economies and led states with barely a hope of defending themselves, let alone overrunning an entire continent or the world. Hitler, by contrast, existed in an entirely different environment. The military balance in 1930s Europe made it far from irrational for Hitler to think that it may be possible for Nazi Germany to consolidate control over the continent.
As economic historian Mark Harrison has pointed out, "in the years 1935-9 Germany had procured a volume of combat munitions far greater than any other power, and equal in real terms to the munitions production of all her future adversaries combined." Hitler was aggressive, disgusting, and genocidal, but the thinking that led to the attempt to dominate Europe was not entirely irrational. For Iran to make a play at dominating a continent, let alone the globe, the leadership would have to be quite literally insane. Yet no evidence has been offered to support this thesis.
The possibility of nuclear weapons intensely magnifies the destructive potential of these countries, but here is where the Hitler analogy actually is useful: Hitler didn't set out to commit suicide. He set out to win. Iran, who knows they can't defeat America or survive Israelis submarine-based second strike capacities, has no incentive to become aggressive. They can't win, and they know it. Comparing them to a country that thought it could win is a really dumb comparison.
November 6, 2007 | Permalink
Comments
While I generally agree the Hitler analogies are wrong and distracting, there are some lessons to be learned. For one, only Hitler thought he could win; his Generals didn’t. For whatever reason, he had the right read on the Allies and was able to take serious risks without being concerned with Allied counters. He takes Austria and the Allies do nothing; he invades Poland and the French do little on the western front when a full invasion would have probably changed things dramatically. The point being, we can draw more from the Allies’ reaction to Hitler than Hitler himself. While we may be able to live with a nuclear Iran – and I tend to agree they understand they’re outgunned and have zero change of winning a war with Israel – we can’t allow them to think that their actions will not have a reaction.
Posted by: DM | Nov 6, 2007 12:40:22 PM
I love the poster Hitler was a drug free vegatarian. Eat meat and do drugs LOL.
Posted by: Floccina | Nov 6, 2007 12:44:39 PM
PS Oh BTW I fully agree that the threat from the Middle East is magnified out of all proportions by the Republicans, so is the SS situation and even the Medicare situation. On the other hand the state of our urban schools, the environment, poverty and healthcare are not as bad as the democrats want us to believe.
Everything is going pretty well especially since the fall of the USSR. It is almost like the republicans made up the middle east threat to replace the USSR.
"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed, and hence clamorous to be led to safety, by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." ~ H.L. Mencken, 1923
Posted by: Floccina | Nov 6, 2007 12:53:23 PM
I love the poster Hitler was a drug free vegatarian. Eat meat and do drugs LOL.
You would have loved the one I saw years ago. Similar photo of Adolph ranting over a text of a famous passage from, I believe, Franz Pearls. The gist ran something like this: I am not in this world to live up to your expectations. You do your thing and I'll do mine and if we meet, it's beautiful."
Posted by: WB Reeves | Nov 6, 2007 12:54:27 PM
BTW, if the stories told about Der Fuhrer's physician Dr. Morell are true, you couldn't actually describe Hitler as "drug free". Too bad.
Posted by: WB Reeves | Nov 6, 2007 12:58:59 PM
...and Hitler wasn't a vegetarian, either. But apparently he did love his mother.
Posted by: mijnheer | Nov 6, 2007 1:09:31 PM
One of the most notable aspects of him was that he had strong suicidal tendencies. He is well known to have spoken of Germany in ruins, having been eradicated but having gone down in glory. He adored the opera that foresaw the end, Gotterdamerung. No, he was one who imagined suicide and suicide for the nation, for a long time. Please don't forget his end was suicide, but had probably been dreamed of years before. A number of his followers were drawn into his suicidal fantasies, killing themselves AND their children.
Posted by: Yan D.Kamecki | Nov 6, 2007 1:15:12 PM
Mijnheer, What do you mean when you say he wasn't a vegetarian? Most historical sources I'm familiar with don't seem to agree with you. Is this a difference in the definition of vegetarian being used, or are you saying that the historical sources are simply false?
Posted by: WB Reeves | Nov 6, 2007 1:31:30 PM
Lincoln was a vegetarian. Does that make it even?
Posted by: chowchowchow | Nov 6, 2007 1:38:25 PM
Hitler was an amphetamine addict.
Posted by: abg | Nov 6, 2007 2:06:09 PM
Adolf, not Adolph.
Posted by: Herschel | Nov 6, 2007 2:10:10 PM
The widespread belief in Hitler's vegetarianism seems to derive from several factors: He did cut down on his meat consumption for health reasons, though it seems he never entirely gave up eating meat. His hero, Richard Wagner, advocated vegetarianism, though I'm not sure to what extent Wagner followed through in practice. The idea of Hitler as a man of high personal integrity and self-restraint suited Nazi propaganda. There was a strong strain of environmentalism within the Nazi movement (e.g., organic farming, favoured by Richard Walther Darre, Minister of Food and Agriculture). Various Nazi leaders, including Hitler, were fond of animals (though Goering preferred to hunt them). And of course the idea of Hitler as a vegetarian is such a bizarre notion on the face of things that everyone remembers it and uses it in clever posters, etc.
Here's a useful essay on the subject:
http://www.vegsource.com/berry/hitler.html
Posted by: mijnheer | Nov 6, 2007 2:17:11 PM
"For Iran to make a play at dominating a continent, let alone the globe, the leadership would have to be quite literally insane."
Is it insane to believe in your own suicide in the effort to forward the Islamic cause? Is it insane to believe initiating a world war will bring about the 12th imam and the caliphate?
Not to Islamic fundamentalists.
Ahmadinejad has stated repeatedly that Israel will be wiped off the map.
Posted by: abg | Nov 6, 2007 2:18:48 PM
Thanks for the enlightening link Mijnheer. I have to say that I find the essay a bit short of definitive. He has two sources that talk about Hitler's favorite meat dishes but since no one claims that Hitler took up vegetarianism until 1937 it's not clear that he continued to enjoy them after that point. A third, a contemporary news item, uses the term vegetarianism inaccurately, thus calling the reliability of the reporter's information about Hitler's diet into question generally.
That said, if it can be shown that Hitler consumed meat occaisionally up to the end of his life, we must aquit vegetarianism of any association with him.
Posted by: WB Reeves | Nov 6, 2007 2:59:23 PM
Is it insane to believe in your own suicide in the effort to forward the Islamic cause? Is it insane to believe initiating a world war will bring about the 12th imam and the caliphate?
Uh, the Iranians are Shias. They consider the Caliphate to have been a heretical usurpation of the Prophet's descendants. They believe that only members of the Prophet's family line are entitled to wield such spiritual and temporal authority.
Learn something about Islam before you embarass yourself again.
Posted by: WB Reeves | Nov 6, 2007 3:08:00 PM
Why don't you learn to read wb. I said "the 12th imam and the caliphate". I also said "Islamic fundamentalists", not "Shia" or "Sunni" fundamentalists.
Before you try to show your knowledge on Islam, why don't you read what you are responding to, or else you might embarrass yourself.
Oh, by the way,
"Our revolution’s main mission is to pave the way for the reappearance of the 12th Imam, the Mahdi,” Ahmadinejad said in the speech to Friday Prayers leaders from across the country."
Posted by: abg | Nov 6, 2007 3:54:23 PM
Of course when Hitler took over, no one believed that Germany, still in ruins from WWI would be able to seriously consider conquering a continent either. Germany became powerful because Hitler had that goal, and set out to aquire what he needed to make it realistic.
If (and that is an if) Iran wanted to conquer large portions of the middle east, a pre-requisite would obviously be having nuclear weapons, to fend of American and Israeli reaction to what they were doing. Obviously, it would be suicide to attack Israel, but should a nuclear armed Iran invade Iraq or Saudi Arabia, is it realistic to think that a nuclear deterant would prevent an American response? Probably at least as realistic as attacking Russia...
Posted by: Dave Justus | Nov 6, 2007 4:26:05 PM
Why don't you learn to read wb. I said "the 12th imam and the caliphate". I also said "Islamic fundamentalists", not "Shia" or "Sunni" fundamentalists.
You think this improves your position? On the contrary, it only points up the fact that you are lumping together disparate and contradictory beliefs under the heading of Islamic fundamentalism. Shias, such as Ahmadinejad and the vast majority of Iranians, aren't interested in fighting to restore the Caliphate. Add to this the fact that Sunni and Shia fundamentalists are deadly enemies, as likely to attack one another as anyone else and the absurd ignorance of your assertions is fully revealed. Islam, fundamentalist or otherwise, is no more a monolithic entity than is Christianity.
For your next trick I suggest you try talking about Christian fundamentalism without distinguishing between Mormonism, Catholicism or Protestantism. That would make about as much sense.
Posted by: WB Reeves | Nov 6, 2007 4:29:29 PM
Iran, who knows they can't defeat America or survive Israelis submarine-based second strike capacities, has no incentive to become aggressive. They can't win, and they know it.
They are, however, actively evangelizing in the ex-USSR -stans. It's difficult to see Washington painting this as a problem while keeping a straight face, though.
Posted by: Phoenician in a time of Romans | Nov 6, 2007 6:36:54 PM
Stop digging, abg. You're already ten feet down.
Posted by: pseudonymous in nc | Nov 6, 2007 6:39:17 PM
wb,
Do Protestants and Catholics worship the same God? Yes. Do both sects oppose abortion? Yes. Do both believe there will be a second coming? Yes. Do both believe that suicide bombings will land them in heaven? No.(Both Sunnis and Shias do) Do Catholics and Protestants believe those who won't convert to Christianity should be taxed or beheaded? No.
Both religions(Christianity and Islam) have apocolyptic endings. But good Christians will be taken to heaven so they don't have to endure the suffering on Earth.
Good Muslims will get to inflict the suffering on Earth, in the name of their God.
Posted by: abg | Nov 6, 2007 9:42:33 PM
Good Muslims will get to inflict the suffering on Earth, in the name of their God.
Tell it to someone who hasn't been assaulted by self proclaimed "christians".
Apparently, you are as ignorant of the history of Christianity as you are ignorant about Islam.
Of course ignorance is a prerequisite for being a bigot.
Posted by: WB Reeves | Nov 7, 2007 12:02:22 AM
BTW, claiming that Shias and Sunnis collectively believe that suicide bombings will get them into heaven is an outright lie.
Posted by: WB Reeves | Nov 7, 2007 12:05:42 AM
"in the years 1935-9 Germany had procured a volume of combat munitions far greater than any other power, and equal in real terms to the munitions production of all her future adversaries combined."
Sounds impressive, if you don't take into account that Germany had almost no munitions stored away in 1935 because of the Versaille treaty (that Hitler consequently broke). The Brits and the French had full stocks, so the increased production in Germany had to make up for the "disadvantage". Nevertheless, Hitler's military occupation of the demilitarized Rhineland was a huge gamble in 1936, and only succeeded because France was weakened by internal politics. And most German leading military officers still thought Germany was ill prepared for war in 1939.
Having said that,I support the general conclusion that Iran is no Nazi Germany, but lets keep the historical comparisons correct and honest, pls.
Posted by: Gray | Nov 7, 2007 3:45:18 AM
"Of course when Hitler took over, no one believed that Germany, still in ruins from WWI would be able to seriously consider conquering a continent either."
Interesting theory. Of course, many Germans believed that, but I understand you speak about foreign observers. Hmm, without really knowing any details, I guess it was like the Iraq war - there sure were some warning voices, but the average, lazily thinking 'pundit' certainly didn't see any danger.
Posted by: Gray | Nov 7, 2007 3:51:42 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.
