Keep Factually independent

Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.

Loading...Time left: ...
Loading...Goal: $500

Fact check: Post Title: The Blueprint: Parallels Between Hitlers and Trumps Tactics Post Content: Have you ever listened to his campaign rhetoric? “We’ve got to go to Washington and drain the swamp”? Hitler campaigned on a similar promise of draining the “parliamentarian swamp”—den parlamentarischen Sumpf! Donald Trump is not Adolf Hitler, and he never will be. But history offers us a powerful lesson in how democracies can be dismantled and how leaders can follow an established blueprint to consolidate power and undermine democratic norms. Hitler's Germany in the 1930s shows us clear patterns worth understanding, regardless of political views. ## Day 1: Appointment to Power **Hitler (January 30, 1933):** Historical records show Hitler had told close allies he was contemplating suicide before his appointment as Chancellor. Conservative elites thought they could control him as a minority partner. Instead, he immediately started placing loyalists in key positions while maintaining a democratic facade. His small party proved remarkably effective at outmaneuvering larger political forces. **Trump Parallel:** A return to power under contested circumstances, perhaps even facing jail time, with rhetoric focused on "restoring order" and "fighting corruption." Many speculate the presidency could be his shield from legal consequences. Early moves would likely involve installing loyalists in crucial positions while claiming it's normal government restructuring. ## Month 1: Emergency Powers & False Flag Operations **Hitler (February 27, 1933):** The Reichstag fire destroys Germany's parliament building. Hitler immediately blames Communists, using this crisis to push through the Reichstag Fire Decree, suspending basic rights like free speech and assembly. This single event gave him the power to arrest political opponents, shut down newspapers, and end public gatherings - all in the name of "national security." **Trump Parallel:** Watch for how crises - real or manufactured - might justify expanding executive power. A hypothetical scenario: Imagine if Ukraine was falsely accused of attacking NATO allies, creating pressure to concede territory to Russia. Those questioning the official narrative would face social and political retaliation. Any major crisis could trigger emergency measures targeting protests, media, or "domestic threats." ## Month 2: Constitutional Crisis **Hitler (February-March 1933):** Using the Reichstag Fire Decree, the Nazi regime begins mass arrests without due process. Germany's robust constitution is effectively suspended through "emergency" powers. Police powers are centralized under national control, eliminating local oversight. **Trump Parallel:** Constitutional crises could emerge through emergency declarations and executive orders testing presidential power limits. We're already seeing concerning signs - like representatives suggesting constitutional changes for term limits. The goal would be centralizing federal authority while weakening institutional checks and balances. ## Month 3: Propaganda Ministry & Power Consolidation **Hitler (March 13, 1933):** Creates the Reich Ministry of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda under Joseph Goebbels. This new ministry gains total control over media, arts, and information flow. Within weeks, they begin coordinating newspapers, radio, and film to spread state messaging while suppressing independent voices. **Hitler (March 23, 1933):** The Enabling Act passes, giving Hitler power to make laws without parliament. Germany's 181-article constitution is systematically dismantled through courts and decrees. This required a two-thirds majority vote, achieved through intimidation, arrests, and conservative party support. **Trump Parallel:** Control happens through social media algorithms, controlled platforms like Truth Social, and attacks on traditional media. Watch for increased litigation against independent news outlets while sympathetic platforms amplify approved messaging. Legal challenges to oversight could expand, while opposition faces both legal and political pressure. ## Month 4-6: Breaking Labor Power **Hitler (May 2, 1933):** All independent labor unions abolished, replaced with the Nazi-controlled German Labor Front. Union property is confiscated, leaders arrested, and workers lose all collective bargaining rights. This consolidates both economic and political control. **Trump Parallel:** Watch for anti-union legislation framed as "pro-business reform." Corporate allies like major tech companies could support efforts to weaken organized labor. When authoritarians take power, independent unions are usually among the first targets. ## The Pattern of Minority Targeting **Hitler (1933-1934):** Systematic persecution of minorities, particularly Jews, framed as "threats to national security." The Law for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service purges Jews and political opponents from government positions. **Trump Parallel:** Watch for increased targeting of minority groups through legislation and rhetoric, always justified as "protecting national security." Immigration crackdowns could intensify, with expanded use of deportations and detention while bypassing due process. ## What To Watch For: - Leaders using crises to grab emergency powers - Attacks on independent institutions like unions - Media control efforts - Targeting minorities as "threats" - Using courts to bypass democracy - Installing loyalists in key positions - Labeling political opponents as enemies of the state Democracy dies through a thousand cuts, not one big slash. Each small step might seem reasonable alone, but together they form a blueprint for dismantling democratic systems. These patterns have remained remarkably consistent across decades. This isn't about predicting the future - it's about recognizing patterns. Whether you support current leadership or not, understanding these historical parallels helps protect our democratic institutions. The time to recognize these patterns is before they fully develop, not after. *Disclaimer:** This analysis reflects my personal views and interpretation of historical patterns. I've used AI assistance to verify historical accuracy and dates. This piece was inspired by Megan Garber's article "Democracy Dies in 53 Days" (The Atlantic, January 22, 2024), but represents my own analysis and concerns about potential parallels. Original Reddit link: https://www.reddit.com/r/somethingiswrong2024/comments/1ib7tgb/the_blueprint_parallels_between_hitlers_and/

Checked on January 27, 2025

1. Summary of the results

The original post presents a detailed comparison between Hitler and Trump's political tactics, which is supported by several academic analyses. Multiple scholars, including legal expert Burt Neuborne, have identified specific parallels in their political strategies, particularly in areas of rhetorical approach and manipulation of democratic institutions [1]. The comparison has been studied academically, as evidenced by Henk de Berg's analytical work examining both figures as political performers [2].

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

Several crucial pieces of context are missing from the original post:

  • The academic discourse on this topic is more nuanced than simple comparison - scholars emphasize studying these parallels to understand populism and ethnonationalism broadly, rather than making direct equivalencies [3].
  • By October 2024, the debate had evolved significantly, with former Trump administration officials, including Chief of Staff John F. Kelly, joining scholars in expressing concerns about authoritarian tendencies [4].
  • The role of establishment figures is more complex than presented. Historical analysis shows that in both cases, conservative elites believed they could control and moderate these political figures, which proved to be a miscalculation [5].

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

Several aspects of the original post require additional scrutiny:

  • While the post presents historical parallels as straightforward, the academic consensus is more complex. The comparison is meant to be analytical rather than predictive [3].
  • The post's timeline comparison might oversimplify complex historical events. While patterns exist, direct historical parallels can be misleading without proper context.
  • Potential bias beneficiaries:
  • Academic institutions and publishers benefit from increased interest in historical comparisons [2]
  • Political opponents benefit from drawing stark historical parallels
  • Media organizations benefit from engaging in controversial historical comparisons
  • Both supporters and critics can use these comparisons to advance their respective narratives

The discussion requires careful consideration of both historical accuracy and contemporary context, avoiding oversimplification while acknowledging legitimate concerns about democratic institutions.

Want to dive deeper?
Jamal Roberts gave away his winnings to an elementary school.
Did a theater ceiling really collapse in the filming of the latest Final Destination?
Is Rachel Zegler suing South Park?