Last weekend, I pulled a little book off our shelf that I hadn’t read yet. That doesn’t really narrow it down much, because we have scores of books I haven’t read, most of them picked up at library book sales and the like.

This one was called &uot;The Rise and Fall of Adolf Hitler.&uot; It was a little book that I remember grabbing at a sale in Fergus Falls three or four years ago.

It took less than a day to read; it was very short and concise, hitting only the highlights, if you can call them that, of Hitler’s life.

After digesting the information for about a week, I started thinking about comparisons between the 20th century’s most notorious madman and the leading candidate for that title in the 21st century: Saddam Hussein.

When somebody wants to

justify a U.S. war against Iraq, they often trot out the Hitler argument. Look what happened in World War II, they say. Europe appeased Hitler, they let him build up his military, they let him take over other countries, before they finally took action. By then, it was too late to avoid millions of deaths. The world acted to stop Hitler then; why not stop Saddam now?

It seems to me there are legitimate comparisons to be made, but there are also some key differences that shoot holes in that argument.

The book drew the conclusion that anybody who has absolute power will be corrupted by it. It pointed to history’s great conquerors, like Alexander the Great and Napoleon. They became so drunk on their own power that they almost elevated themselves to god status in their minds. They thought they couldn’t lose. Of course, they did. Hitler embodied this same problem, and it’s easy to see that Saddam does, too. He took on the world in 1991, and although he was forced out of Kuwait, he’s still in power and he clearly sees it as a victory. And he also has demonstrated that he believes his hatred for the United States is justified by Allah, the same way Hitler believed he had a divine mission to do what he was doing.

The leaders, of course, were also both incredibly cruel and brutal. Hitler came to power through threats, intimidation, and brutality, and once he controlled the country he used the same means to keep his power. Saddam has used the same inhuman methods on Iraq. We’ve heard how he used chemical weapons on his own people, how he’s killed family members who crossed him, and how he tortured and murdered many Kuwaitis in 1991.

The men also share a complete lack of scruples. Shocking dishonesty, reliance on propaganda to justify themselves and skillful political manipulation characterize both. Hitler hoodwinked Europe into letting him get as far as he did before they acted to stop him. He also tricked his own people into believing his sick ideas on the master race, Jews, and Germany’s destiny as the ruler of Europe. He believed that a big lie is always better than a little one, and he practiced that philosophy. Saddam, too, has used deceit and propaganda to control his own population and keep them angry at the U.S., and has worked his magic on the U.N. and much of Europe, who apparently believe he will cooperate fully with the weapons inspectors. Iraq’s massive and incomplete weapons declaration was a stall tactic, and it’s no surprise to me that he &uot;relented&uot; to allow private U.N. interviews with Iraqi scientists, only to announce a week later that the scientists refuse to submit to interviews without state officials present. Yeah, right.

The biggest difference in the two scenarios, however, is that in World War II, there was no doubt that Hitler was a threat by the time the world acted. He had already annexed Austria for Germany by threats and intimidation, and had similarly taken Czechoslovakia. He was building up his military, and anybody who wondered about his intent only had to read his &uot;Mein Kampf&uot; autobiography, where he spelled out all his plans.

Iraq’s case is different. We know Saddam doesn’t like us, and we know he’s a cruel, ruthless dictator. He may well have destructive weapons at his disposal. But never have we attacked a country that wasn’t either threatening us, other countries, or our interests. In that way, the Hitler comparison falls apart.

Dylan Belden is the Tribune’s managing editor. His column appears Sundays. E-mail him at dylan.belden@albertleatribune.com.