Is there nobody like Hitler?

I've been conducting a somewhat extended conversation with Sith blogroll member Barnum's Baileywick of Wick o' the Bailey.
That conversation stemmed from a post of mine entitled "Changing the Perspective," where I tried to offer a rationale for involvement in Iraq separated from the disdain many feel for the initial rationale (however they perceive it) given for the Iraq war.

I don't wish to recap that converation--it's easy enough for those who are interested to follow the above URL to the commentary thread--but rather focus on (what I find to be) the astonishing turn that the conversation has taken.
In the conversation thread, I likened the current situation with Iran to the situation with Germany prior to Hitler's outright military aggression, albeit with considerable subtlety, suggesting that BB's foreign policy suggestion would produce a "peace in our time" comparable to that famously negotiated by Neville Chamberlain.
BB went from doubting the value of an analogy to Hitler to a later proclamation of Hitler's apparently incomparable nature ("There simply is no legitimate comparison to Hitler. He, like most world-historical individuals, is a unique moment in the history of Germany, Europe, and the world.") even after I heartily lampooned that position ("If I photoshopped a pic of Ahmadinejad so that he had boots and a moustache to match Hitler's, would you buy the comparison?").

Denying the similarities based on the dissimilarities is a classic fallacious response to the argument by analogy.

There are basic similarities in the diplomatic relationships in each instance. There is a goal on the part of a belligerent nation (land, uranium enrichment cycle sufficient for nuclear weapons), the stance of the belligerent nation (unwilling to make significant concessions and actions out-of-accord with prior agreements in each case), and the stated aims of the titular heads-of-state (ascendancy of the Aryan, ascendancy of Islam, both to the detriment of the Jew). Additionally there is the potential response to those nations (give up the Sudetenland, allow the uranium enrichment cycle technology to be obtained by Iran--both appeasing strategies).

Trying to squirm away from those similarities based on the supposed one-of-a-kind nature of Hitler is rhetorical nonsense.

***

I almost forgot. BB had more bad arguments.

He does, however, have more support domestically than you admit. The Iranians are not entirely opposed to his leadership, and it does seem that he's a good chance of winning re-election in 2009. His anti-American and anti-Israeli (and anti-Semitic), pro-nuclear comments only endear him more to a large portion of his constituency in Iran. (I've got something on this somewhere, but I've misplaced the link. More on that when I find it.)

I'd have to admit to majority support in order for my failure to admit support to have bearing on my denial that Ahmadinejah has popular (that is, majority) support. BB's response there is a red herring. It doesn't touch my argument at all, instead changing the subject to the apparently irrelevant fact that Ahmadinejad has some support in Iran.

Ahmadinejad's hatred of Israel and the Jews, and his desire to see them destroyed, is by no means morally acceptable foreign policy talk -- but the man is hardly alone among world leaders in believing the State of Israel a fundamentally unjustified entity, the existence of which was imposed by Europe and North America on the Middle East.

It is a shame that those leaders reject the UN establishment of Israel via its partition plan of 1947. Perhaps that accounts for their rejection of other UN resolutions as well.
If Barnum's Baileywick does not wish to advance an argument to the effect that Israel is "a fundamentally unjustified entity" then this topic is a digression as well. Hitler's views, after all, were shared by many in Austria. We don't settle the issue pointing out that some agree with a particular view.
BB would also appear to undermine his faith in the UN if he pursues a line of argumentation that rejects the legitimacy of Israel.

That he gives expression to his convictions regarding Israel is not sufficient grounds for pre-emptive military action, nor for the comparison to Hitler. Hitler actually did try to annihilate the Jews in Europe; Ahmadinejad has not, and likely never will have the power to do so. Even if Iran goes nuclear (which it is almost inevitable that Iran will do).

1) I argued for pre-emptive military action based on Ahmadinejad expressing his convictions about Israel? I could have sworn my argument had something to do with Iran breaking the non-proliferation treaty by pursuing nuclear research forbidden through the UN.
If I'm right, then BB can offer a serious response with his memory properly refreshed.

2) Hitler tried to annihilate the Jews relatively late in his nationalistic program. He was content to restrict their rights initially while expanding Germany's militarily expansion (Jews are part of a lower class in Iran, the dhimmi).
Have you been keeping track of Iran's military, BB? Could their nuclear research have military applications?

3) Ahmadinejad will not have the power to eliminate the Jews in Europe? Why not, and what of the Jews in Israel?
How does one reconcile Iran's probable acquisition of nuclear weapons with their inability to destroy Israel? It seems quite counterintuitive on the face of it--certainly some explanation ought to accompany the claim.