Re: Hitler in the context of his times.

It's seems worth noting that post-colonial administrations have experienced particular moments in their nations' histories in which to realize and exercise their independent political rights,  no matter the circumscription of those same rights within the global political framework and the economic constraints involved. 

At such junctures in their history,  given their new found freedoms, the fruit of their independence, the post-colonial regimes have found that they can play the national interests of one imperial power against another with varying degrees of success;  a political manuever which would have been inconcievable prior to their political independence. 

Robert Mugabe, the President of Zimbabwe, was recently hosted by France at an economic summit, in spite of, or due to the fact that the United States and the British Commonwealth have been actively seeking to isolate Zimbabwe politically and economically, as well as to thoroughly demonize Mr. Mugabe personally in the press.  

France has in fact been making overtures to Zimbabwe in light of the fact that Britain and the United States have usurped French influence in Rwanda;  this same Anglo-American alliance has supported the armed invasion, occupation and looting of the eastern half of the Democratic Republic of the Congo in central Africa's francophone zone by two east African anglophone states, Uganda and Rwanda. 

Given the fact that Zimbabwe, as head of the Southern African Development Committee, (SADC), led a military effort in support of the government in the D.R.C., a government opposed by the US, Britain, Uganda and Rwanda,  it is quite natural that France and Zimbabwe would seek political and economic agreements with one another.  

At the same time,  acting against British and American sanctions, which include attempts to cut off all international credits to Zimbabwe, the later has responded by increasing the extent of and expanding the rate of their national land reform program. Of course, the British and American's have been denouncing the land reform program as a "land grab" by a handful of Mugabe's political cronies, even as they all but curse the tens of thousands of "black squatters" resettling the land whom they equally denounce as "land thieves". (Oddly, Zionist in Palestine, in fact, Europeans the world over, have universally been described as *settlers* in the Western press when they engage in similar endeavors.  Apparently, it is only the indigenous who illegally squat their native land.)  Never-the-less,  political independence has permitted the government of Zimbabwe to engage the Chinese in contracts for the construction of dams, large scale irrigation systems and land preparation operations in an effort to increase Zimbabwe's agricultural capacity.  

What has most dismayed the British government about the Chinese contracts isn't the idea that it upsets Britain's scheme to completely destroy Zimbabwe economically, which would bring an end to Mugabe's political future and lead to the resubjugation of Zimbabwe's economy, to serve British interests, (and of course the economic sanctions have brought about widespread hunger in Zimbabwe), what troubles British capitalists the most is the fact that Mugabe is bartering their colonial structure tobacco crops  to pay the Chinese.

What anyone thinks in the West thinks about Robert Mugabe is tempered by the fact that they have probably never heard one positive commentary about the man aside from the fact that he led his nation to independence in 1980.   However, the negative propaganda leveled against the man has been without precedent in recent history. 
Indeed, in the inter-imperialist rivalry the imperialist powers realize they have much to lose.

Ken Richard