�It is destiny that the world shall be rescued from
its natural wilderness and from savage men��Sen. Albert Jeremiah Beveridge,
�The Star of Empire,� 1900, 
�But we National
Socialists must go further. The right to possess soil can become a duty if
without extension of its soil a great nation seems doomed to destruction. And
most especially when not some little negro nation or other is involved, but the
Germanic mother of life, which has given the present-day world its cultural
picture. Germany will either be a world power or there will be no Germany. And
for world power she needs that magnitude which will give her the position she
needs in the present period, and life to her citizens��Adolf Hitler 
In discussing U.S. military employment of depleted uranium in Iraq, I
framed the issue in a precise ideological setting, which is premeditated
violence to implement conquest.
Indeed, aside from launching an unprovoked war of aggression, the U.S.
displayed unwavering willingness to inflict unspeakable death and destruction
for fabricated reasons.
Because the United States invaded Iraq under the pretext that it
possessed WMD, but then itself used radioactive nuclear material even in urban
centers, it became mandatory that I investigate the ideological making of
American military interventionism.
In parts seven through 12 of this series, I tied U.S. international
violence to the wider objectives of imperialism and placed it in a critical
historical context. As a result, I compared the ideology of American
interventionism with other violent ideologies of power that plagued humanity,
in particular with Hitlerism. Based on undeniable similarities between the
philosophy of intervention of U.S. imperialism and Hitler�s imperialism, I
placed them on the same level. Consequently, I called the general philosophy
and praxis of U.S. interventionism, American Modified and Accepted Hitlerism.
However, comparing and extracting conclusions that attest to equivalence
between the ideology, mentality, culture, economy, politics, manifestation, and
practice of Hitlerism and American imperialism is a complex task that requires
rigorous analysis. The principle reason for this complexity is that differences
and similarities belong to dissimilar political systems, dissimilar national
history, and dissimilar power structure: one was a dictatorship; the other is a
western style �democracy.� The implication is plain to address. As per
indoctrination, because the U.S. is a �democracy,� its actions are inherently
good, while actions by dictatorships are inherently bad.
To dismantle the imperialistic theology of good and bad, I identified 10
levels of comparison between the U.S. imperialist system and Hitler�s
short-lived empire: 1) Imperialism, 2) militarism, 3) pattern of military
occupation, 4) pattern of violence, 5) manifestoes, 6) system of government, 7)
structure of political power, 8) romantic nationalism, 9) propaganda and
indoctrination, and 10) statements of intent.
IMPERIALISM: Being a European leader, Hitler summarized the essence of European
colonialist imperialism. While it is true that he reclaimed lands that either
once belonged to Germany, or were parts of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, it is
equally true that he did not colonize lands he invaded. Eventually, had Hitler
won his wars, we might have ended with a global "Holy Swastika
In �Mein Kampf,�
Hitler projected his brand of expansionist imperialism as a phase into the
future, meaning once Germany expands by recovering its lost lands, it would
expand further by conquering foreign colonies or territory. Technically, his
sequence was correct�expansionism precedes colonialism, which precedes
imperialism. Hitler had two connected visions. The first centered on German
imperialistic renaissance through demagogy, racism, and violence. The second
saw a world dominated by higher races.
Finally, as he despised the inferior races, meaning non-Europeans but not including the Japanese, he accepted
the bearers of culture,
meaning Europeans but excluding the Slavs. (According to Hitler, bearers of
culture can learn and adapt to the Aryan ways, others are biologically inferior
to do so.) Briefly, Hitler tried but failed to implement his supremacist
U.S. IMPERIALSIM: While special historical circumstances helped Hitler�s
imperialism emerge, American imperialism had progressed gradually from
continental colonialism to international imperialism, and finally to global
hyper-imperialism in association with Zionism.
At the beginning, the new American state dismantled the Natives�
social-political structures by eradicating their physical presence through
persistent genocide, destruction of natural habitat, and forced transfer. In
addition, throughout its successive expansion as a federal union, U.S. imperialism
continued its march without any interruption, and managed to extend its reach
beyond its acquired national borders.
Generally, U.S. experiences in colonialism, expansionism, and
imperialism are solid, seasoned, supremacist, and thus far, all appear successful
because of preponderant military force, readiness to employ violence, threat of
economic sanctions, and unaccountability. Yet, the fact the U.S. Iraqi
experience is faltering at all structural levels while America is at its
mightiest moment, may indicate that U.S. imperialism has finally reached its
apogee, and permanent decline is a distinct possibility.
Conclusion: U.S. imperialism and that of Hitler�s
share many common bonds. Both are from European and Anglo-Saxon matrix, both
are expansionist, and both are supremacist in the quest for global power.
Further, while Hitler exercised his expansionist imperialism consequent to
national humiliation caused by Germany�s defeat in WW I, U.S. imperialism views
its objective through the lens of imperialistic Darwinism, meaning the fittest
surviving imperialist has the right to rule and exploit the rest.
There are, however, major differences between the two types of
imperialism. For example, Hitler involved the majority of German society in his
imperialism that, at the end, destroyed Germany. Conversely, the U.S. did not
involve but a fraction of the American society in the physical implementation
of imperialism, but it induced the majority into accepting it as symbol of
national greatness. Therefore, while U.S. military interventions remained
confined to foreign lands, the American society and its economic structures
never experienced any direct consequence of U.S. wars. Another difference:
while Hitler advocated racial purity as a motor for his imperialism, modern
U.S. imperialism, especially after WW II, adapted itself to changing times and
became a multiethnic mosaic where racial superiority as a slogan for empire has
Regardless, U.S. foreign interventionism as motivated by imperialistic
objectives remained supremacist and racist for the following reason: an
aggression or imposition without fear of retaliation, presupposes inherent
superiority in the mind of the aggressor or the imposer. Ideologically,
however, a sense of superiority generates supremacist feelings that begin with
dehumanizing and debasing the invented enemy to the point that the death, in
any size, inflicted on the population of that hapless �enemy� is irrelevant to
the aggressor. In this regard, U.S. imperialism is no different from Hitler�s
imperialism�both depart from the notions of national or ethnic superiority
supported by violence to implement an imperialistic design.
Hitler�s militarism: Was the rearming of Germany under Hitler militarism?
I would argue that it was a reasoned response to defeat. In sporting terms, it
was an undertaking for a re-match with the powers that defeated it in WW I,
especially France that placed heavy conditions on Germany after WW I. However,
after Bismarck unified Germany, made it an industrial power, and endowed it
with a formidable army in the Prussian tradition, it was more than conceivable
that Germany would have aspired to become a major military power in the
likeness of Britain and France, and to join the colonialist club. Accordingly,
the militarization of Germany within the once prevalent European culture of
colonialism and empire building was normal.
Hitler, however, injected his militarism with a new ideology�racial
purity and superiority of the German race. Dialectically, Hitler�s use of these themes as a rallying cry to
unite Germans under his dictatorship is no different from George Bush using
fear of �terrorism� to rally the American people behind his crusading
hyper-imperialist colonialism. Eventually, the militarization of Germany
starting with Bismarck as a chancellor in 1890 ended in 1945, while U.S.
militarization continued unabated.
U.S. MILITARISM: From the cavalry to the 101st Airborne
Division, and with an annual military budget that exceeds $400 billion and
military bases and personnel in every corner of the world, U.S. militarism has
no equal in history. U.S. militarization is not an accidental byproduct of
American development. It is the other way around; American development is a
byproduct of militarization. Furthermore, U.S. militarism differs from all
other forms of militarization because it is neither defensive nor regional in
scope. It is offensive, global, ideological, supremacist, and it is the dynamic
core of American capitalism. To illustrate this point, American politicians and
doctrinaires purposefully magnify the danger posed by all invented adversaries
to further bloat an already overly bloated military budget, thus turning war
and war readiness into a profitable economic enterprise. The result is a
mammoth and incessant militarization that goes beyond ordinary defense or
CONCLUSION: German and American types of militarism are similar in
several ways despite their different origins. Both are supremacist, ideological,
and aim at world domination. Hitler was looking for colonialist partnership
with other European powers; that is why he wanted to recover Germany�s former
African colonies. Conversely, once U.S. militarism reached its imperialist
maturity consequent to WW II, it renounced direct colonialism for over 50
years, until George Bush with a mandate from heaven and Tel Aviv,
decided to reintroduce it again.
Pattern of Occupation
Hitler�s occupation patterns: The popular
adage that maintains history repeats itself may be correct. It seams that while
time moves forward, imperialist powers go backward and repeat past experiences
in all details. Let us take the occupation of France as an example. Before
everything, I must underline that Hitler did attack and invade France, but only
after France declared war against Germany. In any case, when Hitler invaded
France in 1940, he implemented the following scheme. He divided France in
occupied and unoccupied zones. While he controlled the occupied three fifths,
he left France of President Albert Lebrun and his new premier, Henri-Philippe
Petain to rule nominally the remaining unoccupied two fifths.
The following are extracts of the situation in occupied France as copied
verbatim from Spartacus Educational, a prestigious British Internet site :
French Army to disband except for a force of 100,000 men to maintain
French government also agreed to stop members of its armed forces from
leaving the country and instructed its citizens not to fight against the
France had to pay the occupation costs of the German troops.
famous revolutionary principles of "Liberty, Equality,
Fraternity" were replaced by "Work, Family, Fatherland".
figures in the Vichy government included Piere Laval, Joseph Darnand, and
January 1943, Darnand became head of Milice the secret police in Vichy. Darnand
was given the Waffen SS rank of Sturmbannfuehrer and took a personal oath
of loyalty to Adolf Hitler.
Darnand expanded the Milice [militia or secret policy] and by 1944, it had
over 35,000 members. The organization played an important role in
investigating the French Resistance. Like the Gestapo, the miliciens were
willing to use torture to gain information.
U.S. Occupation patterns: Occupied Iraq is
now the epicenter of the American strategy for world conquest. We can verify
this contention by noting that it is in Iraq where we can find the largest
concentration of U.S. troops in the world outside U.S. territory. This
concentration is an indication that Iraq�s occupation is more than temporary.
If we add to this concentration, all other American forces in the Persian Gulf,
our contention would acquire more credibility. However, from the viewpoint of
former U.S. occupation of many countries, Iraq�s occupation stands alone, for
one good reason�Iraq has the second largest reserve of oil on earth!
The following is the pattern of U.S. occupation of Iraq; please compare
to the German model in France.
U.S. disbanded the entire Iraqi army of over 400,000 soldiers, but
maintained Kurdish militia to use against the Arabs in case of an
insurgency that the U.S. could not control, and then
created a new Iraqi army to fight those who fight against occupation
forces. In addition, it disbanded the entire police force that existed
before the occupation, and it created a new police force composed of needy
citizens and collaborationists to rule in civilian unrest and gather
- The now
dissolved �Iraqi Governing Council� and its incarnate successor, the
�interim government,� both appointed by the occupiers, condemned the
resistance against the occupation and called Iraqi freedom fighters,
�terrorists,� �Baathist,� and �foreign fighters.� Further, both those two
illegitimate entities, consider resistance against the occupation forces a
crime punishable by law where no law exists except the law of the
France, Iraq is paying for its own occupation. Indeed, with tens of
billions of dollars from oil revenue, seized wealth, funds, and frozen
assets put under U.S. control, it is Iraq and not the U.S. treasury that
is paying to maintain the occupation regime.
U.S. outlawed the Baath Party and its empty nationalist slogan: �Arab
unity,� �Freedom,� and �Arab Socialism,� and replaced it with its own
slogan: �Occupation as freedom,� �Obedience to the occupiers� Great Iraqi
democracy designed by the CIA.�
Hitler chose French citizens to rule parts of France, the U.S. chose
Iraqis with foreign citizenship (only British and American) to rule
without power. We have names such as Pachachi, Chalabi, Allawi, and minor
Iraqi national figures now entirely under the service of occupation.
2004 the U.S. nominated Al Roubayee, a CIA and British agent to head
�Iraqi National Security Agency [sic]� and another CIA and British agent,
Ayad Allawi, to head the interim government, and a Saudi-Iraqi with ties
to Washington as a figurehead president, and a Kurdish Iraqi-American,
Zibaree, as a foreign minister. All, apparently, took a personal oath of
loyalty to Bremer and his successor, Negroponte.
Joseph Darnand when he expanded the Milice, the new Iraqi
leaders/collaborators are replacing Saddam�s police state, with an American
managed police state, and playing a fundamental role to facilitate Iraq�s
absorption into the U.S. imperialist system, while occupation soldiers are
lending a hand with torture and abuse.
Conclusion: Both Hitler�s occupation of France, and the U.S.
occupation of Iraq appear identical with the difference that all of Iraq is
occupied and not even one portion is under Iraqi control, not even autonomous
Kurdish areas. Further, Hitler did not occupy large portions of Europe because
of strategic decisions over resources. It is a known fact that with exception
of coal and raw iron, most of Western Europe had negligible strategic
resources. The main objective of Hitler�s occupation was geopolitical. He
wanted to change the European order consequent to WW I. Having said that, while
each occupation he performed may have had a different scope, he applied on the
occupied countries an iron-fist occupation regime that was studied, methodical,
On the other hand, U.S. imperialism, although it follows
similar objectives, is more interested in strategic resources and strategic
positioning in relation to nuclear and economic powers. While the occupation of
Iraq is for all disparate reasons, the occupation of Afghanistan has a
different set of objectives. These include placing nuclear China, Pakistan and
India between American forces stationed in South East Asia and now in West
Asia. Other motives include controlling future oil flow from the Caspian Sea,
and exercising pressure on Iran through occupied Iraq and Afghanistan.
How should we interpret the U.S. occupation of Bosnia and
Kosovo, as well as the installation of bases in Macedonia, Bulgaria, Romania,
Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Tajikistan, and Turkmenistan? It is beyond
speculation that the U.S. intends to encircle nuclear Russia�the only effective
force that theoretically could still pose a challenge to U.S. permanent power.
In any case, the comparison between France under German
occupation, and Iraq under American occupation proved one point: both, Hitler�s
Germany and Bush�s U.S.A. used almost identical methods to manage their
respective occupation. This corroborates the charge of equivalence between the
 Quoted in
�Facing West, Indian Hating and Empire Building� by Richard Drinnon, 1990, page
Next, Part 14: American Modified and Accepted Hitlerism: Comparisons and
J. Sabri is an Iraqi-American anti-war activist. He can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org.