First: we should re-iterate the definitions of words. “Compare” unfortunately is used in two senses in this context:
– To take a look at two known different things and find similarities and differences
– To equate two different things, in some respect
and dictionaries do not rank these consistently. From a historical perspective, the second may be more common, but the first is also in wide usage.
My first instinct would be to abandon the word “compare”, but its meaning (or the longer/related form of “compare and contrast”) is something that no other word in common usage gets at. You wind up having to use the “compare and contrast” construct everywhere.
With that said, now we can disambiguate; but in either case, there are important points to be made.
First, let us directly consider the sense of “equating in a certain kind, quality, or attribute”. In this case, there are all sorts of things you can compare to Hitler and the Third Reich: love of dogs, national greatness, proud citizens, economic and military pre-eminence (with some caveats), love of art and architecture, funny mustaches, brown hair, refusal to marry your poor mistress, amongst others. We could mention some other, less savoury, things that went on then. Given that the typical comparer doesn’t directly equate the entirety of the Reich (e.g. swastikas), it would normally be understood as equation to sub-quality, or else in horror or negative magnitude. Given that Hitler and the people in his government committed many evil acts, it’s not too hard to pick out some that, in tragic magnitude, roughly match up with whatever atrocity or mistake you have in mind. Consequently in this sense, people tend to be right a significant amount of time in their comparisons.
Now, let us consider the second use of this word – to understand what is the same and what is different, and to make an estimation of the size of your problem. Here, comparisons with Hitler and the Third Reich are quite necessary. You would not wish your country to fall victim to a demagogue that vows to overthrow the existing order and to replace it with a militaristic state for the good of its people, would you? Well, maybe you might, but at least you wouldn’t want a Holocaust to follow. This is where comparing and contrasting your current situation with that of Hitler and the Third Reich is critical.
For 5-ish years, Hitler was good for most Germans. Under Nazi rule, the Reich’s territory expanded to almost all of continental Europe, with remaining states either as craven neutrals or effective vassals. In order to achieve this, naturally the German economy couldn’t be a basket case in the end, as what happened with the hyperinflation in the 1920s. Certainly there were issues with food production and material consumption generally, but you have to remember that this occurred in the context of the Great Depression, where even the United States had Hoovervilles filled with people with no jobs and no means to support themselves. Furthermore, this occurred in the context of the reparations and the economic turmoil following the Central Powers’ losing effort in World War I, so Germany was even less prepared to handle this turmoil than the Western allies. As such, the personal economic status of most Germans can’t be considered as some kind of contextually-deviant horror. The experience of the people in the Russian-dominated territories at this time (e.g. Holodomor) was not so pleasant.
Yet, the Third Reich ended in massive tragedy, and everyone inside and outside the country suffered. By comparing and contrasting this country with others in their region, you could see that
– They had a strong military
– They had a strong economy
– They had a strong government with clear institutions to enforce order
– They had some pacifist sentiments still
so why did things go so horribly wrong? Contrasts to other countries included
– An unaccountable dictator bent on territorial conquest (i.e. Lebensraum)
– Disregard for the rights of minorities and a political process that was completely illiberal
and it was these last two that led to the two catastrophes:
– The dictator invaded Poland and set off World War II
– The dictator, having destroyed liberalism and demonized minorities while empowering the people to pursue their existing anti-Semitic, authoritarian, and pro-German popular sentiments, increased the persecution and extermination campaigns until they grew into slaughters on the Eastern Front and the creation of the death camps (Holocaust)
This has significant implications for our assessments/judgments of our own governments. Germany compared favorably on a large number of external, easily measured factors associated with stability, peace, and prosperity. Even so, the failure of people to hold the government accountable to the rights and processes of the Weimar constitution, and in general to disregard human rights, left them completely vulnerable to total ruin.
That is – rejection of liberalism is sufficient to kill tens of millions of people!
Consequently, in order for us to assess whether we have a problem, we must use the example of Hitler, and determine whether the same factors are again in effect. Remember that he openly declared his intention and was given the Reichschancellorship by a constitutional back door, not through the approval of the majority of the voters.
Even this is a pretty low threshold. He participated in politics, never got a majority, but espoused views hostile to the Weimar Republic. Those are things we see every day in the American Empire, let alone other countries (e.g. Venezuela). Given that we don’t have a Holocaust every day, we must consider that these factors, identified by this comparison, are only somewhat likely to result in ruin.
However, it is not enough for us to assess that we have a problem. The Weimar center-left coalition knew they had a problem, but were unsuccessful in dealing with it. In order to understand what an effective response might be, we must once again study the history.
Hitler, Stalin, Mao – these men, and many others, committed atrocities and stayed in power for quite a while. We must compare and contrast why these men stayed in power, where so many others, in democracies and in other dictatorships, could not, and were brought to account for their crimes.
Their methods varied: Hitler had his militia and prestige, Stalin had his secret police and mass purges, Mao had his military generals, whom he felt to be unloyal and whom he bucked by instigating a Cultural Revolution. Perhaps my command of the history is insufficient, but there isn’t an obvious one technique that was the same between these men, and others like them that survived. Mainly, they held power, ruled with fear, and had bodyguards.
As such, we must consider that given the failures to remove these men (maybe 40 assassination attempts against Hitler), we must conclude that ordinary means are insufficient. When we compare our own mortal strength and skill to that of the men who tried to kill Hitler, we don’t see that there was a difference in potential means. They had access to Hitler and even got bombs right next to him – but they failed. Hence, if we wish to succeed, we should compare our proposed schemes to theirs; and if they are the same, we know we will fail. We must do something that we can compare and contrast with their attempts, and which is clearly stronger and more effective.
Such means could include killing potential Hitlers during periods like the 1920s, before they seize power, mobilizing the entire population in revolt, or something else. They could include bans from government, or vigilante actions, based on objections to the violation of democratic norms or legal processes early on, instead of waiting for a large magnitude of offenses to become apparent. Whatever they are, we must compare ourselves against the Germans who struggled against the Nazis, and we must accurately judge ourselves to be far more capable and effective.
As we are today in the American Empire, we fail:
– We allow the president to declare war without any check, just as Hitler could sign the treaty with Stalin partitioning Poland amidst opposition within the Nazi party, and then proceed both to seize Poland and also later to betray that same treaty and launch the invasion of the Soviet Union.
– There are people in the country who would disarm the population, leaving us even weaker than the Germans under Hitler. They would have us put our faith in the military and police forces, which not only failed to remove Hitler, but, in the US, has also failed to mount any effective resistance to policies of torture or to the pathetic conduct of the war on terror. You cannot have such confidence in such fallible men and expect any thing other than the enslavement of the population.
– We ignore the written Constitution, so that any assertion of human rights under it, whether freedom of religion, no double jeopardy, freedom from robbery, comes under immediate fire and questioning. Without any law, you don’t even need the backdoor that the Weimar Constitution gave President Hindenburg: you roll right in and do whatever you want.
We should be comparing ourselves to Hitler a lot more – and then we should be acting upon the disfavorable results of that comparison.