They came to destroy civilization
posted at 7:55 am on June 5, 2010 by directorblue
[ Islam ]
In 1933, Adolf Hitler came to power in Germany. Although his totalitarian, Nazi ideology commanded but a minority of the German people, his dogma of of race supremacy appealed to many in society.
The destiny of the Aryan race, Hitler claimed, was to dominate Europe by cleansing the gene pool. The cleansing process was straightforward: exterminate Catholics, Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, the handicapped, and other ‘undesirables’. Only then would the thousand-year Reich reign.
The Nazis quickly violated every international treaty agreement related to armed forces and military equipment. They created new, deadly organizations like the SA and SS for internal and external security. And they began undermining the governments of neighboring countries through clandestine military and intelligence activities.
The German people were, at first, hesitant to embrace the tenets of Nazism. Church leaders and many members of the original Prussian officer corps resisted the Nazis. Students, academics and unions also served as opposition to Hitler in the early years of the Reich.
By 1938, however, the Nazis had seized sufficient power to launch the Holocaust and the attendant military takeover of Europe. Their rationale:
A massive arms buildup defied every international convention and represented forward-thinking military technology. The Nazis’ Panzer tanks and Stuka dive-bombers quickly proved, at least regionally, that the German war machine was without peer.
Furthermore, their demonstrations of dominance quickly convinced the Soviets that an alliance was preferable to conflict. And no one else in Europe was willing to challenge the buzz-saw represented by Hitler’s war machine.
Historians now claim that Hitler’s buildup could have been preempted much earlier. But opposition from the allied powers — England and France — came only after an untenable series of affronts by the Nazis. And the U.S. tried to avoid direct intervention until it suffered a catastrophic sneak attack at Pearl Harbor.
But the most effective check against Nazism — a sanity check, if you will — never came, because most Germans could not believe that Hitler was serious about exterminating the Jews. In fact, German Jews felt relatively secure seeing as how they operated in Europe’s most culturally and economically advanced country.
Compounding the issue, leaders in England and France believed that their political fortunes rested on diplomacy with Hitler. While history now reviles Neville Chamberlain, he had returned from negotiations with Hitler in 1938 as an acclaimed peacemaker.
The religious extremists that rule Iran today enjoyed significant popular support in 1979. Khomeini, Ahmadinejad, Khameini and other Iranian leaders enunciated two clear goals: (a) to bring about the return of the Twelfth Imam and (b) to wipe “Israel from the face of the earth.”
Many years ago, Iran began a massive military buildup. Its most secretive program related to the production of nuclear weapons — and attendant guided missile technologies. At the same time, Iran helped support terrorist groups like Hezbollah, Hamas and Ansar al-Islam.
Today, members of Iranian society believe that they are ruled by the Middle East’s equivalents of rednecks and hill-jacks. This year’s deadly student protests in Iran prove that most citizens are simply not aligned with the Mullahs.
But the greatest check on serious measures against Iran are — just as in the case of Nazi Germany — eradicating the sober suspicion that the Mullahs “can’t be serious.”
Now, as in the case of the thirties, little time remains. Will the President have the wherewithal to truly isolate Iran if it defies basic international convention? That appears unlikely, based upon Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s recent actions and remarks. Somewhere, Neville Chamberlain is shaking his head.
Based upon: R. James Woolsey’s Parallels Between Present-Day Iran and Nazi Germany Cross-posted at: Doug Ross @ Journal.









Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
…can’t stop thinking of western Tennessee.
ericdijon on June 5, 2010 at 8:50 AM
Current events are eerily like other aspects of the 1930s. A Republican is President when economic disaster hits, so conservatism is blamed even though it was liberal policies that brought about the disaster. Then a leftist President takes over, implementing more liberalism, prolonging the disaster. (This is the longest lasting recession since the Depression)
itsnotaboutme on June 5, 2010 at 9:31 AM
Great juxtaposition of photos of the young and old Ahmadinejad. It obviously was him who held the hostages at the embassy. Anyone who denies it is a fool.
Disturb the Universe on June 5, 2010 at 10:25 AM
Well with the economic policies of Obama now starting to take hold we will need another world war to drag us out of the depression he is placing us in
always look on the bright side:) Dear God protect us for these idiots
unseen on June 5, 2010 at 1:17 PM
Well, this president would have quite a bit more wherewithal if the last administration hadn’t squandered a trillion or two of it fighting the wrong war in Iraq and failing to fight hard enough in Afghanistan.
audiculous on June 5, 2010 at 2:18 PM
They are indeed religious extremists, but they are certainly not Islamic extremists. They are in fact very much in step with Islam, the Koran, the Hadith, the Surah, the doctrine of abrogation and Mohammad; pretty much the whole filthy “nine yards”.
Tav on June 5, 2010 at 2:49 PM
Red Herring, but thanks for playing!
Inanemergencydial on June 5, 2010 at 2:55 PM
Khomeini, though a committed anti-Zionist and anti-Imperialist, and though an Islamic mystic (whose teachings and beliefs remain controversial among his peers), was not a “twelver” as the above statement seems to suggest. Fatwas come and fatwas go, but standing interpretations in Iran also are that nuclear weapons and their use are forbidden. These may still have to be revised, but the revision will further pull the mask off the regime.
Contrary to the constant drumbeat from the anti-Islamists, there is no unanimous position on these and related matters within the Islamic world community. There may at some point be a forced unanimity, in opposition to the West, if the anti-Islamists get their way. Such a development would be quite pleasing to the terrorists as well as to many Khomeinists.
In this as in many other ways there is completely unity among radical Islamists and their self-proclaimed most ardent foes. For instance, the self-styled anti-Islamists could and frequently do echo Khomeini’s own notorious response to his own cosmopolitan intellectuals:
CK MacLeod on June 5, 2010 at 3:26 PM
Inanemergencydia
I think not. You know the meaning of “wherewithal”?
audiculous on June 5, 2010 at 3:33 PM
DIRECTORBLUE’s question:
Your answer:
You assume DIRECTORBLUE meant financial means and Bush spent all the money? I’m not sure how that relates to Obama having the wherewithal to truly isolate Iran. Our military assets are next door to Iran. Seems to me, we are in position to isolate Iran.
Inanemergencydial on June 5, 2010 at 3:58 PM
Inanemergencydial
I assume words to mean what they mean……
but the war in iraq also cost us a great deal of influence amongst the other nations of the world. That war, and the neglect of the war in Afghanistan that now requires a hell of a lot of troops that shouldn’t presently be required, has also put a hell of a strain on our military resources.
we spent our money, troops and influence in Iraq without doing a damn thing about the much greater threat to our interests in Iran.
so I guess we also wasted about six years of our time during which Iran got stronger and more influential.
audiculous on June 5, 2010 at 4:07 PM
Consider;
1. Removing a dangerous dictator, and his thuggish, murderous sons, from power is it’s own reward.
2. (3) Free elections since the begining of OIF.
3. A broadening of rights for women and minorities (both racial and ethnic,) in Irag; again, a worthwhile benefit.
4. The Kurds enjoy autonomy, in place of persecution and terror.
All these are good things, that came from our decision, backed by what was considered universally-accepted intel, to move into Iraq.
Had the war been prosecuted better, in the earliest stages, we would today have a much stronger Iraq, and a ready-to-deter military force in the area, to place a drag on Irans’ military ambitions.
massrighty on June 5, 2010 at 7:05 PM
So…
what’s your solution? Kiss up to this or that faction in the hopes that they’ll never agree on everything? They already agree on the most relevant factor: that the West is their common enemy, and our idea of civilization is antithetical to their Koran.
Playing kissy-face with a buzz=saw is not only illogical; it is downright stupid.
hillbillyjim on June 6, 2010 at 3:59 AM
massrighty
Iraq wasn’t anywhere near the threat to our interests that Iran was when we decided to invade Iraq. Iraq was so weakened by war and sanctions that it threatened only the people of Iraq.
Even if you’re happy to start unnecessary wars, it would have been smarter (and less immoral, in case that matters) to start one with Iran.
audiculous on June 9, 2010 at 9:47 PM