Hitler vs. Stalin: Same Wolf, Different Sheep

Adolf Hitler and Josef Stalin; these names are practically synonymous with evil. Most historians agree that both of these men carried out atrocities at the expense of their own people, but some historians argue that that is where their similarities end. The majority of historians believe that the regimes of Hitler and Stalin were essentially the same; the differences between the two were minor and inconsequential. One historian in particular, Richard Overy, believes that these similarities are superficial and that Hitler and Stalin were more different than alike. I beg to differ. Although Hitler and Stalin were on opposite sides of the political spectrum, no matter how far right or far left one’s ideology may be, it ends up in the same place.
Adolf Hitler and Josef Stalin were not simply megalomaniacs. Both of these men thoroughly believed that they had a mandate from history. World War I and the resulting Treaty of Versailles devastated both Germany and Russia. This devastation angered and inspired both men to become leaders. After the war, both the German and Russian economies were in shambles. For the Russians, it was not just due to war, but also due to the Bolshevik Revolution, which forcibly removed Czar Nicholas I and his regime from power. The Bolsheviks had to start from scratch. Hitler, and the majority of Germans, felt that the Treaty of Versailles marginalized and emasculated Germany. Hitler believed that Germany had to rise up and reassert herself on the world stage. All of these events together created a need in the minds of Hitler and Stalin: the need to become the savior of their fallen nations.
Adolf Hitler and Josef Stalin both believed that the cause (state) was supreme. For Hitler, the cause was National Socialism and the purification of the German “race.” For Stalin, the cause was the Bolshevik (Communist) Revolution of Vladimir Lenin. Both regimes demanded absolute loyalty to the state. Those who differed were deemed “dangerous” to the state and were either executed or imprisoned. One was either with the state or against the state. There was no middle ground.
For Hitler and Stalin, the ends justified the means. These men felt that because they had a mandate from history, it was their historical duty to fulfill that mandate by any means necessary. Their means included persecution, execution, and imprisonment. Hitler’s persecution was based not just on politics, but also on race and religion. Gypsies, Poles, and Jews were Hitler’s “favorite” scapegoats. Stalin, on the other hand, was more equal opportunity. He persecuted based almost solely on perceived loyalty to the Revolution. All groups were fair game, though some groups, particularly Ukrainians, seemed to be “preferred” targets.
In the end, Hitler and Stalin ended up justifiably vilified by historians. Despite a belief in a mandate by history, neither regime survived the death of its leader. Despite the survival of Bolshevism until the 1990s, Stalinism was officially denounced in 1956, by Stalin’s successor, Nikita Khrushchev. National Socialism, conversely, was pushed to the very fringes of society. These two regimes illustrate that extremism on either the left or the right is essentially the same thing.

The Sanctity of Life Vs. The Sanctity of Roe V. Wade

Abortion (and sanctity of life issues in general) in America boils down to two religious positions: the sanctity of life and the sanctity of Roe V. Wade. These sides each have their own Scripture and their own respective deities. The sanctity of life side (known henceforth as the Life side) has the Holy Bible (God's Word) as its Scripture and Yahweh as its deity. The sanctity of Roe V. Wade side (known henceforth as either the Roe side or the Death side) has the text of the 1972 US Supreme Court Decision Roe V. Wade (among other works such as Charles Darwin's The Origin of Species) as its Scripture and man as its deity. If any life is to be considered to have worth, then the "logic" of Roe and abortion evaporate. If life begins at conception (which it does), then abortion is state sanctioned murder (which it is). If embryos are babies (which they are), then embryonic stem cell research is state sanctioned murder (which it is). If Terri Schiavo was a person (which she is), then her death by starvation was state-sanctioned murder (which it is). What do all three of these statements have in common? They all hinge on a so called Constitutional right to Abortion, the Roe V. Wade decision (which is a Supreme Court ruling, NOT a constitutional amendment). If any of these hideous practices (abortion, embryonic stem cell research, and euthanasia) become outlawed, then Roe is threatened.
The American Left treats Roe as if it is Gospel. This decision has been responsible for millions of innocent deaths in America. These babies did not ask to die, they were forced against their will. It is our own Holocaust and it continues to this very day. Ward Churchill had it wrong when he said that the victims of 9/11 were "little Eichmanns". The die-hard Roe supporters on the Death side are more like Adolf Eichmann (For those whose history is a little rusty, Adolf Eichmann was one of the Nazi masterminds of the Final Solution aka the Holocaust. He was a despicable man). They have a utilitarian view of life and the worth of a person, as Adolf Eichmann and the other die-hard Nazis did. The Nazis started their program of death on mentally retarded children, then they progressed to adults, then political prisoners, Jews and other people they felt were "undesirable" and a threat to "racial purity". It is a slippery slope. We said "Never Again" when we found out the truth of the Nazi regime, but it was a lie. America is progressing forward (or backward) to the same place. Brave New World seems more like Scary New Auschwitz.
The Roe side says that abortion, embryonic stem cell research, and euthanasia are for the "greater good". How the purposeful killing of another human being can be a good thing is beyond me. The Nazis believed that the systemic killing (and experimentation) of those they felt were "undesirable" was for the "greater good" of the "Aryan race" (Aryans were a tribe of Germanic barbarians, but that is another story).
Abortion is seen as "good" for the mother. If a baby will be an inconvenience the mother from fulfilling her own ambitions (NEWSFLASH -- children are not always convenient), or a baby will hurt her mental well-being (NEWSFLASH -- children will tax the mental health of their parents) or the mother is not financially stable or ready to have a baby (NEWSFLASH -- who but the very rich are financially perfect to have a child when they get pregnant?) or any other selfish rationalization they can come up with to rid themselves of such a "terrible burden". If the mother is too poor to raise a child, the most humane thing she can do is kill her baby? That's not the best she can do. Choice in America means one choice: Abortion. The best choice the mother can make is LIFE. If she cannot raise her child on her own, she can put him or her up for adoption. There are thousands of loving couples who cannot have children who would love to adopt a child. Another reason abortion is so pervasive is because the Roe side wants sexual freedom without limits and without responsibility. They want to "empower our children with sexual knowledge", not save them from AIDS (like they say). They also want to provide Planned Parenthood (and other groups like them) with more future "customers". A child cannot get an Aspirin from the school nurse without parental permission, but she can be taken across state lines for surgery (abortion)? What are these people thinking?
As far as embryonic stem cells are concerned, they have not yielded any cures nor any viable treatments, only tumours. ADULT stem cells, on the other hand, have yielded many successful treatments -- without killing a soul. Why has the Roe side remained silent? It is because they are still holding onto the false hope that killing one baby will help another person live. They feel that one life saved is worth the life of thousands (or more) of embryos (lives that will never be lived).
Euthanasia. It's an ugly word for an ugly concept. Euthanasia is based on the belief that not everyone's life is worth living; that some people either want to die or are so __________ that they are better off dead. Doctor-assisted suicide is an example. Hitler's child and adult euthanasia programs are others.