If You’re Concerned About Fascism, Consider the Threat of War

The recent controversy surrounding former President Donald Trump has reignited discussions about his alleged praise for Adolf Hitler, as reported by prominent media outlets. In an interview with The New York Times, former White House Chief of Staff John Kelly claimed that Trump remarked, “Hitler did some good things.” This claim was echoed by The Atlantic, which cited anonymous sources stating that Trump expressed a desire for generals like Hitler’s. However, Trump’s campaign has categorically denied these allegations, framing them as part of a liberal narrative that characterizes Trump as a potential dictator. While the truth of these statements remains contested, they reflect broader conversations about the dangers of authoritarianism in contemporary politics.

The historical context surrounding the rise of fascism, particularly in Germany during the early 20th century, is crucial for understanding today’s political climate. The Nazi regime’s ascendance was deeply intertwined with the socio-political upheaval resulting from World War I. The war not only devastated Germany but created a fertile ground for extremist factions as discontent brewed among its populace. The chaotic period following the war, characterized by the Weimar Republic’s instability, allowed radical movements on both the left and right to mobilize. Unlike the relatively contained political violence seen in the United States today, post-World War I Germany experienced widespread and brutal conflict between communist and nationalist groups that shaped the national psyche.

A significant factor in the Nazi movement’s rise was the pervasive myths surrounding Germany’s war defeat, most notably the Dolchstosslegende, or “stab-in-the-back” myth. This belief held that Germany did not lose the war on the battlefield but was betrayed by internal political factions, particularly Jews and socialists. Such conspiracy theories capitalized on existing prejudices and fueled a narrative that justified extreme measures against perceived enemies. Hitler, initially a witness to these events, aligned himself with the nationalist sentiments that framed this betrayal, effectively positioning himself as both a savior and a leader in a society rife with mistrust and resentment.

Militarism also played a critical role in shaping the ideologies of both Hitler and Mussolini, who emerged from nations hardened by wartime sacrifice and the perceived injustices of postwar treaties. For Hitler, a key motivating factor was ensuring Germany’s access to resources, which was heavily impaired during World War I due to blockades. This obsession with strengthening the nation through territorial expansion and the elimination of “useless eaters” became central to Nazi ideology. Similarly, Mussolini’s rise was propelled by a demand for national honor, stemming from a sense of entitlement among veterans and nationalists who believed Italy’s contributions were undervalued during the war.

The circumstances that breed fascism often involve a distinct militaristic element, as seen in the historical examples of Germany and Italy. Societies experiencing the aftermath of significant military conflict can develop the conditions conducive to dictatorial leadership. By drawing parallels to contemporary global conflicts, such as the ongoing military engagements in the Middle East, it becomes evident that they might shape American perceptions and governance in unforeseen ways. The experience of war can fuel overconfidence among military planners, leading to a disconnect between public expectations of warfare and the reality of high casualty counts and prolonged engagements.

Prepare for a potential major conflict, such as a war with China, underscores how contemporary America remains unprepared for the substantial toll that could be exacted by such military engagements. Current discussions among military planners predict severe casualties, suggesting that society has not adequately contemplated the ramifications of sustained warfare. These discussions involve dire predictions of the logistical and medical strain that a severe conflict might impose, including the potential for drastic measures to manage casualties. The societal shift towards militarism, as people grapple with the consequences of war, could fundamentally alter American political dynamics, paving the way for authoritarian tendencies if unchecked.

In conclusion, as historical precedents reveal, the rise of fascist ideologies is often rooted in the aftermath of military conflict and societal upheaval. Understanding this connection provides essential insights into current political discourse, especially regarding figures like Trump and their perceived authoritarian tendencies. The conversation about the potential resurgence of fascism should incorporate a thorough analysis of militaristic influences and their implications for democratic governance. To genuinely address these concerns, there must be an understanding of the historical lessons that illustrate how war can precipitate not just national distress but also pave the way for the emergence of dictatorial regimes. By addressing the underlying causes of military conflict and the conditions that enable authoritarian rule, policymakers and citizens can take proactive steps to secure a more stable and democratic future.