[Editorial]
- A powerful country asserting control over another country’s future.
- Justified by claims of stability, security, or necessity.
- International law and sovereignty become secondary.
- Supporters frame it as helping; critics call it aggression.
- “Temporary” control is promised — history shows this claim often matters a lot.
No, I am not talking about Trump, but rather something that happened 88 years ago.
In 1938, Adolf Hitler ordered German troops into Austria. He justified the move by claiming Austria was unstable and that German intervention was necessary to restore order and prevent civil conflict. The takeover was presented not as conquest, but as protection — protection from chaos, subversion, and unnamed internal enemies.
Not quite a “narco-terrorist,” but the same idea: protecting the country from perceived threats.
Hitler framed the takeover as assistance, unity, and restoration. International law and Austrian sovereignty were treated as obstacles rather than principles.
Now, nearly nine decades later, an American leader is speaking about asserting control over another nation’s future. The rhetoric is understandably different. The systems, values, and stated intentions are not the same. Yet the logic used to justify intervention can sound familiar: instability, danger, moral necessity, and the promise that control will be temporary and beneficial.
This does not mean history is repeating itself. It never happens for the same reasons — each case has its own unique twist. Trump’s version involves “narco-terrorists,” a term created by Trump and his team. Other nations throughout history often rely on similar narratives when overriding the independence of weaker ones. Each era adds its own language, its own enemies, and its own assurances.
Seizing Austria led to World War II. The U.S. stirred things up in Iran in 1953, in Guatemala in 1954, Chile in 1973, Iraq in 2003, and Libya in 2011. Each intervention resulted in long-term instability and power vacuums that were filled by violence or authoritarian rule.
In Venezuela today, Acting President Delcy Rodríguez bowed down and kissed Trump feet, but the real power lies with the military. Will they allow the U.S. to take control, or will this lead to a drawn-out conflict? How Trump’s so-called “little glorious war” ends remains uncertain — the outlook is not encouraging.
That is why historical comparisons matter — not to declare equivalence, but to recognize patterns before they harden into precedent.
[/Editorial]
Agree 100%. It is within the rhyming of history that we find the compasses and weapons to lead us through times like these. This line is very important: "Each intervention resulted in long-term instability and power vacuums that were filled by violence or authoritarian rule." I have stated before my connections to Chile via my lover at the time when the U.S overthrew the elected president, Salvador Allende and allowed the right-wing military to take over the country, resulting in thousands of deaths, my lover's family among them. Will Venezuela follow this pattern? Certainly, no one on either side is going to be quiet and take it. So what have we, yes, we in the u.s unleashed there? What excuses by the regime in D.C will we believe, and what will we reject? Will we play at the buffet table, picking and choosing our actions? Will our actions or reactions be based on our hatred or dislike for the leader in Washington, but would we give a pass to a democrat regime? I like what Frank Little had to say, "Either we are for the Capitalist slaughter fest or we are against it." One last thing, for how many years have we chanted No Blood For Oil getting us nowhere? What lessons can we learn in our failed responses?
ReplyDelete