[Calliope]: 216.Essays.Attitude Towards Dictatorships

International Attitudes Towards Dictatorships
Should the international community take an active role in removing dictators?
  Throughout the course of history, not solely within the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, many dictators have entered and exited the scene. Some names caused even the strong to cower and will forever live on in infamy. Bearing titles such as Fuhrer and Il Duce these men invoked terror and pushed people beyond their limits. However, these men, although more infamous, are not the only dictators to have set foot on the planet. Monarchies are forms of dictatorships as well and there are many Kings and Queens known to the history books who succeeded in supporting their people. These leaders set an example for us, showing us that dictators need not be removed from power simply because they are dictators. There must be viable evidence that their motives aren’t in the interest of other nations. In this day and age, we have a greater goal to strive towards than nationalism. Today, we strive for supranationalism. We have progressed to a point where what effects one, effects all, and that is why a dictator should be removed, but only if they threaten global prosperity.
  Hitler is one of the most infamous dictators and not only of his time. His cruelty, lack of compassion, insane goals, and creation of the Holocaust place him higher than virtually any other dictator. To achieve his ideas, Hitler claimed the lives of over six million Jews as well as hundreds of thousands of Gypsies, Jehovah’s Witnesses, mentally and physically handicapped, and gays. Hitler took advantage of Britain and France’s appeasement policy after World War I and even his debacle in the Beer Hall Putsch could do little to stop him. Instead, he took his time in prison to write his book, Mien Kampf, ‘My Struggle’, which outlaid all of his future plans. Unfortunately, nobody bothered to take him seriously. After Hitler became the leader of the Nazi party and Chancellor of Germany he gave himself the title of Fuhrer and there was very little time for looking back. Following their policy of appeasement, Britain and France sedately handed over the Sudetenland to Hitler during their meeting at Munich without even conferring with Benes, the Czechoslovakian leader at the time. Hitler’s excuse for wanting this highly militarized area was that its German occupants were being prosecuted by Czechoslovakians. It became apparent that this was not the true reason when shortly thereafter, on September the 3rd, Germany invaded Poland. Still, Britain and France could do nothing and it wasn’t until sitzkrieg finished the following spring, after Norway, Denmark and the Netherlands had fallen, that any action began on the allies’ side. After taking time the rearm they were read; thus started World War II.
  Even after this declaration, the allies had their hands full. France fell on June 22, 1940 and left Britain standing alone against the axis powers. America was still purely isolationist and refused to get any more involved than their lend-lease policy. It wasn’t until Japan, another member of the axis powers, bombed Pearl Harbour on December 7, 1941 that America became an integral part of WWII. Another asset which joined the allies in 1941 was the U.S.S.R. under the direction of the communist dictator, Josef Stalin. After the signing of the Nazi-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact, the Soviets had taken their piece of Poland and the three Baltic republics and left the war in the west alone but when Hitler breached this signing and invaded the Soviet Union on June 22, 1941 Stalin had had enough. Britain had lasted through blitzkrieg and Operation Sea Lion; She had withstood near constant bombings from the Luftwaffe yet still she had not fallen. Under the leadership of Winston Churchill, Britain had prevailed and once again had allies.
  Throughout the war, people knew that conditions were harsh, but it wasn’t until Poland was liberated in 1945 that the truth came out. Hitler had committed such atrocious deeds that many were struck dumb, claiming it was all a hoax. With the passing of the Nuremburg Race Laws, the Nazis had erected extermination and concentration camps for their prisoners. Here, over six million people starved or were beaten to death, or were systematically gassed in multiple chambers. No Nazi death camp is as famous as Auschwitz, which was made up of two labour camps and an extermination camp. Responsible for the highest number of deaths, this camp was a direct figurehead for all that Hitler represented. He started out in search of lebensraum for all his Aryan’s; he finished off committing suicide instead of facing the consequences of his actions. Unlike Hitler though, many of his top Nazi officials did face retribution at the Nuremburg War Trials. Here, many were convicted of a newly created crime, Crimes against Humanity.
  During the last few years of World War II, the Soviets had lent increasing support and were the pivotal force behind the battle of Stalingrad. This battle, along with the battle of Midway in the Pacific, and the battle of El Alamein in Northern Africa were key successes to toppling the Nazi regime. However the plight against Hitler had created a diversion for Stalin. This fearsome communist leader was also one for taking advantage of the situation. After liberating Eastern Europe from German occupation, the Soviets took control of the many diverse nations. When discussions at Potsdam, Tehran, and Yalta pressured Stalin to free the nations and make them democracies, a rift between the U.S.S.R. and America grew larger. This was to be the beginning of the Cold War and the dissention of the Iron Curtain in 1961.
  As Stalin continued to rule over his Soviet communist nation and its surrounding satellite communist states, the American’s began their policy of containment to prevent the ‘Domino Theory’ and spread of communism. This wasn’t immediately successful though and China was quick to take up after the Soviets under the leadership of their dictator, Mao. Soon, this spread to North Korea, where the leader, Kim IL Sung, was the first dictator to use the cult of the personality, raising him to God like stature for his people.
  The eastern hemisphere was becoming riddled with communism all lead by formidable dictators. In the pursuit of containment America pushed to assist South Korea when the North moved to conquer its southern democracy. This was made possible, only because Russia had stormed out of a UN Security Council meeting and was unable to use her veto. This allowed the UN to send in coalition forces, mainly American, and prevent Il Sung from spreading his territory. The events that took place during the Korean War would go on to create a power struggle between the two largest communist leaders, Stalin and Mao. This rift was carried on even after Stalin’s death and succession by Nikita Khrushchev, even though Khrushchev promoted destalinization. This program helped bring to light all that Stalin had done during his long reign as communist leader. The Soviet economy was in the slums; people were starving and had no income. It is estimated that twenty million people died as a result of Stalin’s harsh policies and purges. Little is known about the Chinese dictator Mao, but it is thought that he created a very similar situation during his reign in China. It is these three dictators, Hitler, Stalin, and Mao, along with various other’s like Mussolini, Kim IL Sung, the current leader of Cuba, Castro, and the current leader of North Korea, Kim Jung IL that set the foreground for prosecuting dictators. These men have not and are not the only dictators though.
  Up until it became a constitutional monarchy, the British royal family was a dictatorship. They did go to war and people did die, sometimes in vast numbers, sometimes not. As an absolute monarchy which followed heredity, it all depended on who was next in line. When Richard the Lionheart led his forces into the Crusades, it resulted in hundreds of deaths, but he isn’t recorded as being an unjust and cruel dictator. Even though they are purely symbolic figureheads I can see no members of today’s royal family immersing themselves in racist, anti-Semitic, or any other sort of violent conquering escapade. If anything, many, more recent monarchies, have shirked their responsibilities to the population. The French Revolution led to the downfall of much of the French nobility. Simply by being irresponsible Louis XVI contributed to his own death. A similar situation occurred with the Romanov’s. When the Czar, oblivious to his countries needs, focused on his family and staying out of politics, he inevitably encouraged a revolution which led to the end of Czarist Russia. Many would most likely say that being irresponsible is asking to be removed from your position of authority and to a point it is. However, being irresponsible does no where near as much damage as planned, malicious intent like many of the twentieth century dictators possessed. Even today’s spectrum of nations possesses dictators.
  At the present, much could easily be said about dictators and their styles and motives. Saddam Hussein, currently on trial for his crimes against humanity, was as much a dictator as many can become at this stage of human evolution. He commanded a nation, instigated wars, and suppressed minorities. Is it any wonder that he was forcibly removed from his position where he was harming other nations? His was a threat to global cooperation and what little peace can be found. For a man who has committed such atrocities as him and in such a manner, it is quite ironic that he would complain to having an unfair trial, simply because technology such as elevators, are not always reliable. Many of his victim’s most likely wish he had only made them walk up five flights of stairs.
  There are examples everywhere of current dictators who are successful, and those who were quickly replaced. Castro has been leader of Cuba for nearly five decades now. Even though he is communist and this ideology led to America enforcing trade and tourism blocks on the island nation, the Cuban’s still support him. As the old saying goes, different strokes for different folks, after all, since when are leaders prosecuted solely because they don’t agree with one another? We’d never have peace if that was the case.
  Just within the last couple of weeks and the onset of the New Year, nations labeled ‘progressive’ have surpassed America in their pursuit of change. Both Liberia and Chile have elected female presidents. Meanwhile, long standing democratic nations such as Canada, are in the midst of an election and all we see are parties bickering back and forth and harassing one another through campaign ads. For nations that have both experienced dictatorships in the past, they have come a long way. Yes they are progressive nations, but not in the derogatory way many mean the term. Sure they may not be as advanced as some of the G8 countries, but not many of the G8 countries revive themselves from dictatorships and then elect female leaders. There is much to be learnt from developing countries. Many have been, or still are, dictatorships but their dictators did not commit such carnage on the scale that the dictators of more advanced nations did. To say that these nations would be better off having never experienced such authoritarian control is something nobody can truthfully do. They gained experience that will help them with future decisions and that is obviously beneficial as we step foot into a new century that requires new perspectives.
  Should the international community act to remove dictators from power? No. The international community should use their well rounded discretion and base decisions on evidential support. If this evidence provides proof that the dictator threatens the global state and the attempt at supranationalism put forth by organizations such as the European Union and United Nations, then by all means, take evasive measures. However, until such a threat is clearly portrayed, let nature run its course. This planet has seen thousands of dictators to date and will most likely see thousands more. If it weren’t for such leaders, we wouldn’t be who we are at present. We wouldn’t be capable of making the decisions we do every day. We wouldn’t be capable of appreciating our freedom as we do. We would probably walk right into another Holocaust but at this stage of the game, that would mean nuclear or worse, something we can’t afford. Experience, no matter how unsavory, should never be rejected. That is why dictators, while being watched with a close eye, should not be removed from power unless they breach a certain point.

© Angie O'Connor