Well, if I was willing to start this with a simple, one-word response to the statement given in the question in order to show where I stand on the subject then it would be this: NO.
But I wouldn’t do such a thing. Oh no. Because I do feel this does require some level of explanation to follow with it. Which is what I intend to do in what will follow. But first I feel some sort of explanation is required. Firstly, this is not directly an anti-war article. Any of you who know me though will know that I am indeed anti-war, but that is not directly the reason for why I write this. I write this because it struck me whilst watching Question Time on BBC1 last night (27/02/2003) that there are quite a few people who are believing what is told to them by the majority of politicians that something needs to be done in Iraq because in the 1930′s much of the public was against the idea of war and that it was the public of that time’s ‘fault’ that we tried to appease Hitler and allow World War II to happen on such a scale etc etc, and that the situation in Iraq is similar and we cannot go on appeasing Saddam or similar problems will happen. Personally I believe that to be an overstatement of the greatest kind, and I also believe is clear use of ‘spin’, a favourite tactic of the current government. I should also point out at this point that I am not a historian, indeed I do not know everything there is to know about German history, but I have studied the two World Wars to GCSE standard for two years, and even from that (and a certain amount of my own knowledge) I can still draw the conclusion which I have stated above.

And so now for my reasoning. Let us first look at why politicians would possibly contemplate portraying such a parallel to the British public. Particualarly a parallel with such blatant inaccuracies as exist in this idea. Well, the main reason is desperation. Tony Blair feels the need to go to war – whether he feels such because America is telling him to or whether he truly believes it is a different matter all together – and he knows that a lot of people in the country, not to mention many in his own party as the vote in the Commons showed recently. And I would dare to say that a majority of the public feeling is anti-war also, although clearly I cannot say for definite but I would hazard a guess at that. And so Tony Blair and the pro-war ministers feel that they should try and liken the current situation to the early 1930′s as they know that there is still a lot of anger – for want of a better word – and fear of a repeat of World War II and a Hitler-esque figure . And rightly so. There is no question that Adolf Hitler was certainly a vicious man, and his methods of persecution (both of the Jews and his political opponents) were horrific. But the situation in which he came to power and how he was able to do such things are in no (or very few) way similar to Saddam Hussein’s rise to power in the current situation.

For a start, Adolf Hitler came to power due to his National Socialist party being able to gain support through the weakness of the German governments of the time (which were constantly changing and forming weak coallitions) and, of course, the effects of the Wall Street Crash, which hit Germany particularly badly after much American input had been placed into Germany during the course of the 1920′s. Both he and the German National Socialist Party (which Hitler used as a front for his plans of the Third Reich) manipulated the state of the country and public opinion – with the help of Dr. Goebbles – in order to gain votes. They were able to do this by offering the German people scapegoats to blame for Germany’s defeat in the Great War (namely the Jewish community) and to offer solutions to the huge problem of unemployment that existed in Germany. And those were important matters to the people of Germany at the time. Of course there were a great many other factors that helped the Nazi party achieve the majority and pass the legislation that they needed in order to become the only party in Germany. I can indeed go into what detail I know of these (such as the Reichstag Fire, rule by Emergency Decree etc etc) but I felt it unnecessary to mention those now, but if anyone wants me to then by all means email me and I shall edit this!
Now, as for Saddam Hussein, well, for much of the start of his reign he was supported strongly by the American and British administrations of the time, indeed it was due to Anglo-American work that he first go into power. But other factors have to be considered when mentioning this point. For a start, Iraq was, and still is, a relatively ‘new’ country. It was created at the end of the Great War in an attempt by mainly French and British “nation-builders” to unify parts of the middle east (creating modern day Iraq and Saudi Arabia), and in doing so meant that many rival tribes were grouped together under one ruler, usually established (again by the British and French nation builders) as constitutional monarchs.
That is not what they needed, or indeed (all but one tribe) wanted. Now, we live in anything but a perfect world, which is why it was illogical to think that by grouping rival tribes together under one rule that they would suddenly cease from being rivals. It just cannot – and will not – ever work. That is why Saddam felt he could launch terrible weapons upon the Kurds – they were, and always have been, his clan’s enemy. They were not his own people, as the persistent Anglo-American Alliance wishes to tell us. I am by no means condoning those actions, but you can begin to understand why he did it. But I digress slightly. My reason for pointing out that fact is that Iraq is a very diverse country, it is unified only in name and theory. Germany was not. True, the German political situation was in tatters, but public opinion was not diverse – the only thing they wanted was a solution, which Hitler offered. There is a very distinct difference there.

As for how Saddam was and is able to stay in power, well that I agree is very similar to Hitler, and that is by fear. Both Saddam Hussein and Adolf Hitler ruled by fear. It is by no means right, and it is indeed a similarity. Public executions are common place in Iraq (granted not all executions will be public, but the majority), in Germany there were done ‘sceretly’ whilst at the same time making sure people knew that ‘traitors’ were being dealt with. And that brings another point raised by MP’s – the idea of appeasement. MP’s are mentioning this and claiming that people in the 1930′s, like now, did not want to go to war and would rather appease Adolf Hitler, and allow the torture and genocide to continue. That, I’m afraid is a bad comaprison. For a start it should be remembered that we are looking at Nazi Germany with the great benefit of hindsight. At the time very few people really knew what was happening in Germany, including the government. Granted, at this time the German Jewish community were NOT being sent to the concentration camps, but they were being told to leave the country, and were intentionally ousted from a great many jobs. But political prisoners were being sent to the camps. But not very many people knew anything of this in Britain – not even rumours of it. So that is not why people in Britain did not want a war, there were very many more important factors to the British public of that time. Firstly, they had only ten years previously witnessed the first war to ever effect people both on the home and fighting front. British people were knew to this, it shocked and disturbed them greatly. Secondly, but connecting to the first point, Britain suffered considerable losses of men in the Great War, many of whom were volunteers who had entered the war not really knowing what they were about to come up against. Thirdly, the Great War had been extremely costly for Britain. Much money was loaned to the government and was still being, or had just been, paid back. To make matters worse, the effects of the Wall Street Crash of 1929 were still ringing strong in Britain. It is true the Wall Street Crash did hit the Germans much more viciously, but it affected the world too. The country could barely afford to re-arm, and the public did not want to face another war – they were still shell-shocked.
That is not the same as the current anti-war movement. The vast majority (if not all) who are involved in the anti-war movement know of Saddam’s inhumanity and unjust treatment of Iraqi civillians and very few are by any means trying to appease Saddam. I personally despise Saddam Hussein and what he stands for and will be the first to admit something does need to be done about him – but that ‘something’ is not war. I feel there are more humane ways we can go about this rather than killing innocent civillians and increasing the hatred that exists – particularly in the middle east – for the so-called ‘west’. This is not about appeasement, yet that is what MP’s try to throw into this equation, and why do they do it? Because they know there is still a stereotype of kinds that is anti-German, and fears World War III, and will therefore gain a backing for war, which I’m sure in some cases will work. But that in itself is ironic. As little as some people are prepared to admit it, the world is on the edge of something huge here, I’m not saying World War III, but huge. Human rights are a major issue in this anti-war movement, as well as a strong move against ‘weapons of mass destruction’ – internationally (ie American and British too). But I risk going into an anti-war article, which I shall come to at a later date when I have the time.

But by mentioning what I did their briefly brings about yet another point that further shows these inconsistencies that exist in this comparison that is being made – Weapons Of Mass Destruction. This indeed is one great inconsistency. Because one of the very many reasons the the Anglo-American partnership is trying to throw into the equation is the principal of disarming Saddam Hussein of such weapons. That was not the case in the 1930′s. Disarmament of any kind was not on the agenda in the 1930′s. Indeed, the governments of Europe were prepared to allow Germany certain concessions in terms of re-armament, but Hitler abused the system and was able to gain pity from the Allies for Germany and claim that the terms of the Treaty of Versailles (1919) were too harsh on Germany (which, to be fair, they were) and re-armed with virtually no checks done on him. Of course, nuclear weapons did not exist, neither did biological. But the use of mustard gas and various other gas attacks came first in the Great War, and of course the German armed forces in general were greatly restricted by the Treaty of Versailles, but no checks existed.
Iraq however is completely different. For a start, it is in no means isolated in what it can do. It is under incredible scrutiny, as the current weapons inspections. Granted there went a period where the UN inspectors were withdrawn from Iraq, and that was a period of uncertainty. But even so, with the advanced spy technology (spy planes and satellite photography for example) that America and the ‘Western’ powers have at their disposal it would be extremely difficult to conceal any major works. Plus let us not forget the constant bombing that has occurred ever since the end of the first Gulf War by American and British planes over the no-fly zones in Iraq, a bombing that has recently been stepped up considerably and extended its list of targets. That just does not compare to the German situation in the 1930′s. It could certainly be argued that they are similar in the way that it would appear they were both intending to arm themselves and pose a threat to surrounding areas or possibly the world, but I would still beg to differ with that view as in light of the other points I’ve put forward I believe that outlook to be rather uninformed. Of course, it could be me who is uninformed, I don’t know, but my look on it at the moment is that.

And I think that just about brings an end to this article. To sum this up in conclusion I can confirm that I do not think Iraq 2003 and 1939 Germany are similar as some politicians would try to have you believe. As I have hopefully shown, whilst there are a (very) few similarities between the two, there are a lot more inconsistencies that do no justify the case being put forward. If I have ommitted one point then perhaps it is this one. One other possible similarity between the two is Iraq’s attempted invasion of neighbouring Kuwait and the German ‘expansion’, resulting in the invasion of Poland which sparked the Second World War. But there is a reason I ommitted that point. I did so because I am discussing Iraq in 2003, and the invasion of Kuwait came over 10 years ago and did give ‘Western’ reason to start the first Gulf War and is therefore past Iraq, not present, and can hence not be used in a current analysis of Iraq, and certainly not to compare it to Germany 1939. Because to compare Germany of 1939 and modern-day Iraq just is not feasible; the weapon’s involved are completely different, the checks in place are completely different, and the situation surrounding each leaders’ rise to power are different. But by the same token there are similarities. But I feel its justifiable to say that these similarities are few, and are outweighed by the inconsistencies.
So, why do the politicians make the claim? Well, as I said earlier, it is about ‘spin’. They are saying this, in my opinion, to try and scare people into wanting a war by conjuring up the idea that if we don’t go to war then we have ‘another Hitler’ on our hands. Its nonsense. Indeed Saddam is evil, as was Hitler, but they do/did not pose the same threat. Like I also said at the start of the argument, I am not a historian, and I admitted some of my points will possibly be flawed by other factors, but I have tried to put across my interpretation.

So: Germany 1939 & Iraq 2003: Are they really similar? No.

Peace.