The Splendid Failure of Occupation
Part 13: American Modified and Accepted Hitlerism: Comparisons and conclusions (1)
By B.J. Sabri
Online Journal Contributing Writer


Jun 10, 2004, 13:17

�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, [1]

�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 [2]

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

HITLER'S 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 Empire."

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 imperialism.

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 become counterproductive.

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.

militarism

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 101^st 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 offense.

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 [3]:

• The French Army to disband except for a force of 100,000 men to maintain domestic order.
  
  
• The French government also agreed to stop members of its armed forces from leaving the country and instructed its citizens not to fight against the Germans.
  
  
• Finally, France had to pay the occupation costs of the German troops.
  
  
• The famous revolutionary principles of "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity" were replaced by "Work, Family, Fatherland".
  
  
• Prominent figures in the Vichy government included Piere Laval, Joseph Darnand, and Jean-Francois Darlan.
  
  
• In 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.
  
  
• Joseph 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.

• The 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 intelligence.
  
  
• 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 occupying forces.
  
  
• Like 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.
  
  
• The 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.�
  
  
• While 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.
  
  
• In 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.
  
  
• Like 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, and ruthless.

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 two.

Notes:

[1] Quoted in �Facing West, Indian Hating and Empire Building� by Richard Drinnon, 1990, page 307

[2] http://www.geocities.com/fusaoracial/HitlerEnglishMFP.htm

[3] http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWvichy.htm

Next, Part 14: American Modified and Accepted Hitlerism: Comparisons and Conclusions (2)