I do not have enough sociological or historical knowledge to discuss this, but it seems to me that at least some of those points are properties of more general authoritarian systems than nazi, fashists or specifically Hitler's.
But as they match very well what is happening in at least one of big and important countries, and (maybe a majority of them not all) in many other countries partially (either with the government or one of the parties of significance in the local political scene) - they should better be attributes to authoritarianism not to Hitler.
Because people who support those governments (or parties) would immediately say "our beloved leaders are nothing like Hitler" and then just refuse to think about any of those things (argument "and Hitlerum" is usually making people angry, not thoughtful).
But if you stress that this is how authoritarianism is born and then how it gradually swallows benign political systems, and then mention that this is *also* what (gradually) happened in Hitler's Germany, then more people may think about your message and look at their reality.
I hear what you're saying, and it’s a valid concern. But the two aren’t mutually exclusive — they simply belong to different discussions. In history, you examine Hitler’s authoritarian tactics. In political science, you study authoritarianism itself — how it develops, how it exploits systems, and how to spot it early.
You are of course right about it. It's just that to me it seems that in this history analysis of Hitler it would be all too easy to replace H***** with (for instance) T**** and almost nothing would need to change in the article to still make it sensible and consistent.
And I guess this may induce mixed reactions with people who see this obvious similarities. And some of those people might have actually see the reality if it was not for bringing the name of Hitler.
I do not have enough sociological or historical knowledge to discuss this, but it seems to me that at least some of those points are properties of more general authoritarian systems than nazi, fashists or specifically Hitler's.
But as they match very well what is happening in at least one of big and important countries, and (maybe a majority of them not all) in many other countries partially (either with the government or one of the parties of significance in the local political scene) - they should better be attributes to authoritarianism not to Hitler.
Because people who support those governments (or parties) would immediately say "our beloved leaders are nothing like Hitler" and then just refuse to think about any of those things (argument "and Hitlerum" is usually making people angry, not thoughtful).
But if you stress that this is how authoritarianism is born and then how it gradually swallows benign political systems, and then mention that this is *also* what (gradually) happened in Hitler's Germany, then more people may think about your message and look at their reality.
I hear what you're saying, and it’s a valid concern. But the two aren’t mutually exclusive — they simply belong to different discussions. In history, you examine Hitler’s authoritarian tactics. In political science, you study authoritarianism itself — how it develops, how it exploits systems, and how to spot it early.
You are of course right about it. It's just that to me it seems that in this history analysis of Hitler it would be all too easy to replace H***** with (for instance) T**** and almost nothing would need to change in the article to still make it sensible and consistent.
And I guess this may induce mixed reactions with people who see this obvious similarities. And some of those people might have actually see the reality if it was not for bringing the name of Hitler.