Why we keep comparing politicians to Hitler & why we need to stop

Opinion: It's a comparison which is unproductive at best and dangerous at worst as it effectively kills public debate

As war has returned to Europe, and more recently to the Middle East, an old comparison used in times of conflict has been resurrected (though, to be fair, it never really dies down): one side is like the Nazis, and their leader is the new Hitler.

Whether it is Vladimir Putin claiming to be fighting neo-Nazis, Ukrainians calling him the new Hitler, Benjamin Netanyahu declaring that Hamas are essentially Nazis, or Palestinians arguing that the roles have now been flipped, the idea is the same. Something of the current conflict is like World War II, and the other side is decidedly as evil as the Nazis were. Even in times of peace, this comparison is often used and abused: Marine LePen once likened asylum seekers praying in the streets of Paris to the German occupation during World War II.

We need your consent to load this rte-player contentWe use rte-player to manage extra content that can set cookies on your device and collect data about your activity. Please review their details and accept them to load the content.Manage Preferences

From RTÉ Radio 1's Drivetime in February 2022, then Tánaiste Leo Varadkar brands Putin 'Hitler of the 21st Century'

Comparing current actors to the Nazis is unproductive at best and dangerous at worst. It effectively kills public debate. Who would be evil enough to side with the Nazis, perfect illustrations of the worst humanity can do? More worryingly, it can be used to dehumanise the other – essentially turning them into monsters – and justify extreme violence. If anyone ever deserved a horrible death, isn't it Hitler and his supporters?

But if the Nazis comparison is so bad, why do we keep on using it? The first reason has to do with how we understand our social environment. Because reality is so complex, and we have often little energy to spare to understand it, we tend to use mental shortcuts. For instance, instead of fact-checking what we read, we look at whether it matches what we believe already. If it aligns with our existing beliefs, we tend to take is as true, even when it comes from a dubious source.

When it comes to conflict, one of the main shortcuts we use is historical analogies. We take well-known past events – World War II and the Cold War tend to be favourites – and map them unto the current conflict. This helps us simplify reality and identify whose side we should be on, when reality is often complex and nuanced. It also helps us anticipate what might happen in the future: the Nazis were eventually defeated, and so will the enemies of today. For as odd as it sounds, comparing current events with World War II also carries a message of hope.

From RTÉ Radio 1's Drivetime, Kevin Maguire from The Mirror on broadcaster Gary Lineker comparing UK asylum policy to Nazi Germany

Analogies can carry a lot of meaning because they rely on well-known stories. Comparisons with Napoleon, the Gulags, or Pearl Harbor are often questionable exaggerations, yet we all know what they mean. This is not always bad because analogies can be a good way to grasp a complex and evolving reality, and to mobilise populations in times of crises. When Covid-19 hit, choosing the right comparison was crucial. Is it like the Spanish flu and to be taken extremely seriously? Or is it like the seasonal flu, where we are warned every few years of a terrible epidemic that fails to fully materialise?

The problem with analogies is that we are much less apt when it comes to finding them than using them. In practice, it means that we will happily use a bad analogy if we know it well or others have suggested it, even if it makes no sense at all. Finding a better analogy is effortful, and requires deep knowledge both of the current situation and of what historical events it could be compared with.

This is why we so easily fall back on comparing everyone to Nazis or, as a second favourite, to Stalin. Most of us have used this analogy in the past, so it'll come to us easily. Others are more likely to suggest it, encouraging us further. The problem, though, is that we’re likely to twist reality to make it fit the analogy anyway instead of recognising when the comparison doesn't work.

From RTÉ Radio 1's History Show, meet Hitler's Irish relatives

A second reason we use historical analogies is that they make us feel good about ourselves. This is because we don’t compare the present with actual historical events, but with our representations of what happened. History, as it is shown in movies, discussed by politicians, or even taught in school, is often quite one sided and self-serving.

National narratives about World War II, for instance, are often more about resistance to the invader than about local antisemitism and collaboration with the Nazis, regardless of how representative it is of what happened. France, The Netherlands, Denmark, Poland, all have museums dedicated to local resistance movements during World War II, while collaboration is scarcely addressed.

We should be careful with how represent others and the power of words

And this is the problem with invoking World War II every time a conflict arises. We don’t compare others to Nazis to remind ourselves that antisemitism was rampant in the 1930s and that discourses that dehumanise others – portraying them as vermin or as inherently violent – can lead to the worst atrocities.

We should be careful with how represent others and the power of words. Instead, it’s about rallying people around a metaphor that’s easy to understand and letting us feel we are standing on the right side of history even if current events are difficult to grasp. But unless we are truly willing to learn from the past, it is probably best to retire our simplistic historical comparisons.

The views expressed here are those of the author and do not represent or reflect the views of RTÉ

Why we keep comparing politicians to Hitler - and why we need to stop

More stories on

Constance de Saint Laurent