By R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr. on 4.3.03 @ 12:02AM
If you think Saddam's a good guy, isn't it time to give Adolf a break?
Washington -- Having now witnessed the sympathetic treatment
that so many world leaders accorded Saddam Hussein, especially at
the United Nations, an unexpected thought occurs: Can Adolf
Hitler's reputation, too, be rescued? I would not have thought so
until I witnessed the supportive treatment Saddam's regime has been
getting. In France fully a third of the populace is pulling for him
in his war with the "Anglo-Americans." Who are these Frenchmen?
Possibly they are the descendants of those French who collaborated
with the Nazis. Has anyone polled them on their present assessment
of Hitler? How about polling them on Hitler if he were engaged in
war with the Anglo-Americans? Such a poll might mark the beginning
of Adolf's comeback in world opinion.
Actually, though Hitler's reputation is dreadful today this has
not always been the case. During the 1930s when French statesmen
such as Edouard Daladier and the British Prime Minister Neville
Chamberlain were engaged in negotiations with the Nazis, Herr
Hitler inspired hope among Europe's peace-loving democrats. Back
then it was the Czechs and that reckless man Churchill who alarmed
the bien pensants. Returning from signing the Munich
accords with Hitler, Prime Minister Chamberlain spoke of him as
though he were a gentleman of the finest breeding. Now, of course,
Hitler's name is a term of abuse. Recently the venerable Washington
correspondent, Helen Thomas, lumped him into a category with
President George W. Bush. Those who would resuscitate the German
dictator's reputation are going to have their work cut out for them
after Miss Thomas's outburst.
Yet Hitlerites everywhere have reason to hope that better days
are ahead. Hitler did play rough, but Saddam has played rough too,
and according to my readings of both men's biographies Saddam has
committed atrocities that even Hitler did not commit. Moreover,
unlike Hitler, Saddam's personal habits include none of the
progressive preferences that we now recognize as politically
correct. For instance Hitler was a vegetarian and strict opponent
of tobacco. Saddam is a raw meat guy and in the familiar film
footage of him holding that antique rifle above his fedora his
nicotine-stained fingers really stand out. Hitler was a dog lover,
so much so that in his Berlin bunker he personally administered
poison to his Alsatian bitch, Blondi, lest she fall into Soviet
hands.
Yes, Hitler was a tyrant and he did perpetrate genocide. He did
engulf the world in war. But Saddam did too, though his genocide
and wars have been on a lesser scale. On the other hand, Saddam has
actually killed people with his own hands, some being members of
his family. Reputedly he has a film library of his torturers at
work, and he takes great pleasure in the torture of his enemies and
of those Iraqis who would not pay protection money to his sons. I
have read half a dozen biographies of Hitler and cannot recall any
instance of his killing anyone with his own hand. In fact after
reading the most recent and thorough biography of Hitler by Ian
Kershaw I came away with the distinct impression that Hitler was
made quite squeamish by the sight of blood.
One other point on Hitler's behalf, he had no corrupt sons.
Saddam has two and one of them, Uday, actually maintained a prison
complex under the offices of the Iraqi Olympic Committee, which he
ran. According to Con Coughlin in his splendid recent biography,
Saddam: King of Terror, the prison was capacious enough to hold 520
prisoners -- I say was, as Bush's ruffians bombed it without any
regard to the future of the Iraqi Olympic team. At his prison Uday
has been witnessed torturing prisoners himself for such offenses as
refusing to pay ransom. Coughlin writes that the prisoners were
"mainly businessmen or the children of wealthy families who Uday
thought were ripe for exploitation."
Actually, though Hitler's barbarism has been on a grander scale,
the barbarism of Saddam and his family does give one pause to
wonder. Why is our war against him considered so controversial by
supposedly civilized Western nations such as France and Germany? As
I have written before, once the Coalition of the Willing has access
to Iraqi records it is going to be apparent that France and Germany
along with others were willing business partners with this grisly
regime. Two other causes have led to these pompous nations'
obstructionism. They are procrastinators even as they were
procrastinators in the 1920s and 1930s when dictators rose to
menace the values of civilized democracies. Secondly they are
spiteful. They have been revealed as shirkers and exploiters and
you would not expect such cads to respond with magnanimity and
gratitude. Both nations in their own ways gave us a Hitler in the
past and allowed a Saddam to prosper and to torture. In my esteem
they stand about as high as they did in 1945, when the
Anglo-Americans liberated their wretched ancestors.
topics:
Business, Iraq, United Nations, NATO
