Comparing contemporary politicians or policies directly to Hitler/Nazism is an emotionally powerful move, but the article uses it inconsistently and without clear criteria. At times the author admits differences (no expansionism, different social base), then asserts equivalence (e.g., linking Trump/Netanyahu to Hitler). Without explicit criteria for what counts as “Nazism” (ideology, methods, goals, scale), these comparisons become rhetorical hyperbole rather than an analytical tool.
ArtemZ•1h ago
Comparing contemporary politicians or policies directly to Hitler/Nazism is an emotionally powerful move, but the article uses it inconsistently and without clear criteria. At times the author admits differences (no expansionism, different social base), then asserts equivalence (e.g., linking Trump/Netanyahu to Hitler). Without explicit criteria for what counts as “Nazism” (ideology, methods, goals, scale), these comparisons become rhetorical hyperbole rather than an analytical tool.