What exactly did Candace Owens say about Adolf Hitler in 2019 and how did she defend those remarks?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Candace Owens said in a December 2018 speech that “if Hitler just wanted to make Germany great and have things run well, OK, fine,” and argued the problem was Hitler’s ambitions “outside of Germany,” a remark that went viral in February 2019 and drew broad condemnation [1] [2]. Owens subsequently defended and recontextualized those comments across social media, video statements and Congressional testimony, insisting she was distinguishing “nationalism” from genocidal ideology and that critics had taken her words out of context [3] [2] [4].
1. What she actually said at the London event and how those words were presented
At a Turning Point–related event in London, Owens answered a question about nationalism by saying, “If Hitler just wanted to make Germany great and have things run well, OK, fine,” and adding that “the problem is that he wanted, he had dreams outside of Germany” — language that framed Hitler’s evil as tied to expansionism rather than the genocidal program inside Germany and abroad [1] [2]. Video of that exchange circulated widely and was summarized in news accounts and encyclopedic entries as both the original quote and as part of an argument that Hitler should not be conflated with the term “nationalism” [5] [6] [7].
2. Initial public blowback and media framing
The remarks triggered intense backlash from journalists, politicians and commentators who criticized the apparent minimization or misframing of Hitler’s crimes, and the clip was described by multiple outlets as a defense or exculpation of Hitler’s early policies [3] [8] [9]. Coverage varied in tone but converged on the conclusion that the comments were politically explosive enough to damage Owens’ standing at Turning Point USA and in wider conservative media discussions [6] [3].
3. Owens’s immediate defenses: context, clarification and repetition
Owens pushed back quickly, saying journalists had taken her out of context and that she was making an academic distinction between “nationalism” and Hitler’s genocidal mania; she asserted Hitler “was a homicidal, psychotic maniac” and “wasn’t a nationalist,” a line she used in subsequent clarifications [5] [2]. A Turning Point spokesperson also defended the exchange as part of a discussion about “nationalism vs. globalism,” arguing that Hitler’s exportist ambitions made him uniquely evil — a defense cited in archived reporting [7].
4. How she defended the remarks in longer-format appearances and in Congress
After the clip circulated, Owens expanded her defense in interviews and at the House Judiciary Committee: she reiterated that Hitler “was a homicidal, psychotic maniac” and insisted her point was that “nationalism” as the belief in your nation’s sovereignty should not be automatically equated with Nazism; Representative Ted Lieu played the original audio during a 2019 hearing and Owens responded publicly to that airing of her words [5] [9] [4]. Media critics, including outlets like Haaretz, reported that in some interviews Owens appeared to downplay or shift the subject, prompting further disputes over whether her clarifications accurately reflected the earlier remarks [10].
5. Political consequences, competing readings, and unresolved questions
The controversy was consequential: Owens resigned from her Turning Point USA post in 2019 amid the uproar tied to these comments and other disputes, and the episode has since been cited in biographical summaries as a turning point in her public profile [6]. Supporters frame her defense as an intellectual distinction meant to rehabilitate the word “nationalism”; critics say the original phrasing and subsequent adjustments showed either a dangerous casualness about historical atrocities or a rhetorical misstep that cannot be cured by after-the-fact clarifications [3] [8]. Reporting shows both the precise words she used and the divergent postures she adopted in defense, but does not definitively resolve whether her later statements fully corrected the meaning audiences drew from the original clip [2] [10].
Conclusion
The record shows Owens made a provocative claim at a December event that was widely interpreted as minimizing Hitler’s crimes by separating them from nationalism; she then repeatedly defended herself by insisting she was quoted out of context and by clarifying that Hitler was a homicidal madman, not a “nationalist” in her definition, an argument that satisfied some audiences and enraged others and ultimately contributed to professional fallout [1] [2] [6].