Hitler and Saddam

Over the past year of teaching, I noticed how the students often referenced Hitler as an example of the epitome of evil. On the one hand, I was happy that they had some knowledge of history and that they were applying it in different contexts. On the other hand, I was dismayed that he was the only historical supervillian ever mentioned.

Now, before I get accused of being anti-Semitic, let me clarify that I do think Hitler was bad, perhaps even the most bad. My problem is not that he is regarded as evil, but that he is regarded as evil to the exclusion of other historical misbehavers such as Stalin, Mao, Pol-Pot, Ida Amin, etc. (NOTE: etc = and many more that I don’t know about.)

To be fair, my own history education in high school was pretty weak, and I too would have only been able to conjure up Hitler. I’m only aware of Stalin because I was a nerd and borrowed educational videos from the library. I only know about Mao because I lived in China and ended up reading a lot about the Cultural Revolution. I only know about Pol-Pot because I visited the killing fields in Cambodia. I only know about Ida Amin because I watched the film The Last King of Scotland followed by a little internet research. So I only really know about the others through self-education. And I’m sure there are many others rulers who committed equally horrific atrocities that I am not fully aware of because my travels or movie watching hasn’t come across them yet.

The fact that Hitler is the main/only evildoer taught in schools leads me to propose a rather minor conspiracy theory relating to the education of our youngsters in the ways of evil dictators: Maybe the others are being omitted or overlooked because we, the great and infallible USA, did not fight against them. They don’t fit into our master narrative of being the country that fights against injustice around the world. How do you explain to kids that we stood by during the Rwandan genocide?

Think about it. Hitler makes a very convenient symbol of the epitome of evil not just because he was so calculatingly horrible, but because the USA fought against him and won. Never mind that the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor was what actually prompted the USA to enter the war. Hitler makes a very convenient story. We were never his ally (as we were with Stalin) and we took (belated) action against his regime (as we didn’t with virtually every other evil dictator).

Which leads me to my theory about Saddam Hussein. After the weapons of mass destruction failed to materialize and the connections to Al-Quaida and 9/11 were debunked, the mouthpieces insisted that Saddam’s atrocities to his own people alone justified the invasion. He was a really bad guy, the USA fights bad guys, therefore the USA fights in Iraq. It’s a very simple, happy narrative, that people can easily understand because that’s what the USA did with Hitler.

(UPDATE 6/24/09: Apparently, Stephen Colbert has been reading my blog. See this video of Stephen Colbert's interview with Simon Schama on 6/22/09 in which he states that if you don't fight Saddam, you love Hitler. The interview is over 6 minutes long, so if you're short on time, the relevent part starts around 2:10 and goes to 2:45.)

The problem, of course, is that the world is and has been filled with lots of bad guys that the USA doesn’t/didn’t fight. My favorite part of the Saddam story is that it falls apart so easily if you look just a millimeter deeper and realize that the USA was friends with Saddam during the time he was committing the atrocities that allegedly justified the invasion so many years later.

Furthermore, the idea that the USA fights on behalf of the oppressed is not born out. Again, I only know through self-education related to my travels that the great USA postponed Namibian independence from Apartheid-ruled South Africa by at least ten years. The USA supported the apartheid regime (and had Nelson Mandela listed as a terrorist threat) because the Namibian resistance movement, SWAPO, had support from a communist group based in Angola.

Was communism really so bad that it justified the oppression of people on a race-based caste system? Isn’t the theory behind communism at least a little more in line with American values than enforced inequality? Of course, the historical context is relevant—this was still the cold war—but seriously, apartheid?

Besides, I think the USA should have just sat back and let communism run its course. I believe that the world operates, at its core, by Darwinian principles. Therefore, a flawed system such as communism will naturally implode, without all the wars. In fact, the wars just strengthen communism by providing a common enemy for the people to rally around. Read Animal Farm by George Orwell.

I’m not saying that the USA should or shouldn’t fight bad guys and bad regimes. I’m just saying they should be honest about the real reason they’re doing it. For example, another reason given for invading Iraq is that we wanted to bring democracy to the Middle East, and they oppress their women. Following that logic, shouldn’t we be invading every country that isn’t a democracy and/or oppresses women? Of course, following this line of reasoning is simply unsustainable. Therefore, there must be other reasons we fought Hitler, and other reasons we invaded Iraq. The simple narrative of the good and just USA fighting oppressive regimes around the world is flawed.