Dictators: What Happens to Them?

Post Reply New Topic

It's a well known story: A young, outspoken Bavarian makes a few impassioned speeches, writes a book, inspires the German spirit. Next thing you know, he's killing Jews and Polaks like mad, invading every nation on the Eurasian continent, and gets the scheisse kicked out of him by the heroic Allied forces. Adolf Hitler was not a nice man. Adolf Hitler's evil destroyed Germany for a second time in less than thirty years, and scarred most of Europe in the meantime. It's also fairly well known that he was an excellent leader for most of the '30s, building a superpower out of it's own ashes, creating jobs, building infrastructure, and getting named Time's man of the year. What happened? Did he wake up one morning and decide to massacre the Jews? Was it all his plan from the start? Did the pressures of the job get to him? Such a turn around is fairly jarring to say the least.

After the 1968 Ba'athist coup, Iraq was a shockingly successful nation, blossoming for the first time since the Caliphate fell to the Mongols. Schools were built, food was produced, jobs were created. The leader of Iraq at the time was President al-Bakr, but it was widely acknowledged that the power behind the Ba'athist, the mind behind it all, belonged to his deputy, Saddam Hussein al-Tikriti. The success rested largely on his prodigiously mustachio'd head. Yet, when he took the presidency in 1979, things got gradually worse and worse and worse, to the point of his son Uday using the nation as his Id's personal playground and Chemical Ali gassing the Kurds for fun. Did the Iran-Iraq war push him to his limit? Did the betrayal of the United States drive him mad, or remove the checks from him (He was under the impression that the White House had given him permission to invade Kuwait; Until then, he was eager to curry U.S. favor)? Why would a brilliant leader turn into a vile murderous lunatic?

From Lenin to Mugabe to Museveni, it's the same story retold time and time again.

It always seems to play out the same way: A decade or two of brilliant success followed by a complete turnabout? What's the deal with Dictators?

About the brilliancy: I only can talk for Hitler, because of him being born in this country and conquering us very early, we learn much about him.

I dont think he was that brilliant. In Austria he simply lived on the costs of his family, when his mother died he spend his inheritage, and then went on to germany. There he joined a rightwing party, and there first try to grab the might in bavaria ended in acomplete failure with Hitler and other people getting jailed. The book he wrote in jail "Mein Kampf" (=my battle) is historical proven complete nonsense, so much of it has been proven as lies by historical facts, as example his "heroic doings" during first worldwar. (He barely got into battle.) The right wing party managed to become part of the government, but only because of the conservatives trying to use them. (So they needed a small party for government and offered the right wings to do the government with them, as long as they simply do their stuff. Suddenly the leader of the conservatives died, leaving them without lead, and so the rightwing sidekick partners suddenly were the only functioning part of government. Hitler promised specially the workers lots of stuff, but in the end the german government was completely in the debts, so the german economy was simply collapsing because of them having no experiences with governmental leading. Whenever they stood at the edge they simply stole the money, by confiscating the goods of political opponents, jews and so on. When they again had no money because of them being so incompetent, they simply raided my homecountry and took our empire-insignia (lots of gold and other jewels) with them and lots of other stuff. The need of them to get more land in the east to support the german folk, simply was based on them being to stupid to rule a country. And the war against poland simply was a gigantic pokerround of Hitler, that simply hoped that the UK and France would not riks a war with germany for poland. A poker game that ended with millions of deads.

So I dont see the great successes of Hitler until he got f****d up. The Blitzkrieg in France? That was General rommel, ignoring the direct orders of Hitlers, and simply trying on his own a new tactic. His great efforts against the high unemployment? - He didnt manage to create stable jobs in a stable economy, the numbers simply got better because more and more young men joined army, while on the other side 100.000 of political opponents were killed, jailed, forced to leave the country and leave their goods, or arrested into working and killing camps. The only real success you could say was in russia... if you dont know, that it has always been the tactic of the russians (because of their huge country) to pull back until the enemy must face disadvantages. Hitlers russia war failed exactly out of the same causes, Napoleons russia war failed 1,5 centuries before. Russians pulling back into their core country, avoiding to let the enemy settle down in a stable place and when the russian winter comes, and the attacker must face -40 degrees without a good camp and lousy support because of every second supply line not functioning because of winter and easy to attack because of the great distances, they kick your ass. Its as if he studied Napoleons russiawar and then said to himself "Oh god, that sounds great. I also want to get a so brutal ass-kick like Napoleon."

I simply dont get, why so many people see him as such a great dictator. The only positive thing he manged were the jobs. As long as you ignore, that in the end he hardly created any new jobs, he simply lowered the amount of people that were seeking jobs. Great. So maybe Obama needs some advices from us: Simply send 50% of your unemployed with lousy material and support to Afghanistan, 40% into jails to produce that lousy material, and 10% you simply kill. Woohoo....no unemployed people anymore! What a great success!

Iraq had its revolution in 1958 and Qassam took over. He was killed in the first Ba'athist coup of 1963 done in conjunction with the army and the CIA (the Communists were powerful and had been Qassam allies). The Ba'athists were sidelined by the army after several months leading to the time of the brothers Aref (they ran the place with the Ba'athists led by Al-Bakr for the short period before taking power completely). The first brother Aref died in a mysterious helicopter crash. The second Ba'athist coup of 1968 ousted the Aref regime. Saddam headed the secret police and became vice president. An Iranian-armed and CIA-supported Kurdish uprising in 1972 lasted until the Algiers Agreement of 6 March 1975 between the Shah and signed by Saddam Hussein. The CIA help for the Kurdish uprising coincided with the 1 June nationalisation of Iraqi oil by the way. In the late 70s, Shi'ite uprisings began in southern Iraq as the Islamic Revolution began in Iran. Saddam Hussein seized power from his uncle with the justification that he was not adequately dealing with the threat of Islamic revolution in Iraq.

Individuals like Hitler and Saddam Hussein probably have Narcissistic Personality Disorder. When they do good for their country, it's basically to magnify themselves. And as they believe the rules of morality don't apply to them, they feel they can sate their darkest fantasies and impulses - which they've probably harbored for a lifetime - on a grand scale when the opportunity presents itself.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

1. History is written by the victors who will say whatever they like about whoever they have defeated and it will become the official and accepted storyline.

2. Dictator lacks a precise definition. Are George Bush and Tony Blair dictators? If not, then if they had been overthrown whilst in office then would they be dictators?

3. Some dictators stay in power for decades with no signs that they will be overthrown. President Karimov of Uzbekistan is a classic example.

Some die peacefully in bed, of old age, never having gotten in real trouble since they seized power.

Makes a lot of sense. The people around them basically become victims or have their lives improved based on their whims? It would also explain why they think they can stand against the world, too, if they're absolutely certain that they're right and deserving.

Those around dictators can be sycophants, brown nosing the great leader for privilege and power, or they can be true believers, caught up in a cult of personality. Often, they're a little of both.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

As applied to Hitler - you're demanding an explanation for something that never happened. Nother ever "happened" to Hitler in the way you mean it.

Hitler got into power in the first place by exploiting popular hatred for the jews ( and fears of other groups: commies, gypsies, etc), and by scapegoating them for somehow magically causing Germany to loose the first war and later for ruining germany's ecnomy. His program was evil from the start. He didnt start out being a good guy doing only good things- and then one day 'decide to kill the jews'. It didnt happen that way.

Before achieving any power hitler started out by saying "im going to do evil stuff-conquer the world and murder millions- its all here in mein kampf". And thats exactly what he did.

\

It is all in Mein Kampf which was written in 1925 when A.H. was in jail.

ruveyn

What if the dictator who is replacing the former administration/ banking factions actually has a moral compass and is loved? People always associate bad people as dictators, while the same royal families stay in power, and the same banking families.. but what if somebody does come to power, and started eradicating poverty, hunger, disease, etc..

They’d be strongly opposed, because that’s stealing from the rich to give to the poor. Well, actually, there’s a grimmer way to achieve the same stated goal.

What makes him a dictator? Having absolute power?

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Well, that's my point. It seems they all come in riding on a platform of freedom, brotherhood, and equality, but somewhere they all seem to take a wrong turn. Castro did a lot of good, early on. He also did a lot of bad. (I'm not looking to restart the damn Cuba shouting match, people). Due to elements outside of his control (Assassination attempts, attempted coups, embargos...) thanks to his neighbors, things didn't work out so well, and contributed to his paranoia, causing him to turn Cuba into a low-rent police state trying to stay in power.

Best of intentions, but there's always that something that comes along to press the wrong button, even if it's merely the presence of power itself.

Finally, in a system where one man has absolute power, for good or ill, and he's bloody kittens-huffing-rainbow-sprinkles wonderful... What do you think that the odds that his successor will be?

Yes, having the military backing, state, legislative, executive, judicial, corporate, etc.. except for say, the former establishment comprised of a centralized banking elite, shrouded by royal and nobility..




I guess perhaps it would depend on the goals at hand.. I doubt Castro wanted Cuba to turn into what it has, despite having some of the best doctors in the world, and even a better life expectancy than the US .. better education system, etc. What if a dictator came along, opposed the old world order, backed it's currency by resources and commodities.. gaurenteed housing / food / education / healthcare.. except in return for that, trade was limited, lower consumer spending, and other worldly powers were hostile towards them. Would you trade the benefits / for a consumerist for-profit life built around competition?? I'm not advocating socialism, but within our economic financial system of perpetual debt and interest.. we'll need socialism in the future.

All that can be safely said is that they are drawn to positions of power and influence.