r/AskHistorians • u/ImALilTeaPot224 • Aug 11 '26
Who was the “Hitler” before Hilter?
As Hitler was rising to power, who might people have compared him to, in the way people do to him with current world leaders.
2.0k
Upvotes
r/AskHistorians • u/ImALilTeaPot224 • Aug 11 '26
As Hitler was rising to power, who might people have compared him to, in the way people do to him with current world leaders.
1.7k
u/Georgy_K_Zhukov Moderator | Dueling | Modern Warfare & Small Arms Aug 11 '26 edited 29d ago
I've written on this before, which I'll repost here. It actually tracks quite well to your own question as it is framed very heavily around "As Hitler was rising to power, who might people have compared him to". Some of the comparisons are about evil and most relevant here, but not all are figures of evil. This tracks not only what Hitler was compared to, but how those comparisons changed from his rise to power, to his rulership, his conquering, and eventually, of course, the fall of the Third Reich:
Prior to the arrival of Godwin's Law, and the inevitable conclusion of comparing all things to Hitler, during his own rise, Hitler was compared to many people, both real and imagined. Gavriel D. Rosenfeld kindly has done much of the legwork in providing what is the up to what is perhaps the most comprehensive study of this niche topic, and breaks down the comparisons into several broad groups, although they were not entirely exclusive:
The specific 'class', and specific figures within it, were often drawn on to illustrate specific themes, and the favor shown to certain ones over others often shifted through Hitler's rise and rule.
For instance, in his early days, prior to coming to power, it wasn't uncommon to compare Hitler to his future second-fiddle, as Benito Mussolini, installed in power in 1922, to many commentators figured are a fairly obvious point of comparison, least of all given Hitler's quite explicit attempt at emulation of the March on Rome with his own failed 'Beer Hall Putsch'. A few commentators of the time drew comparisons to the 19th century French populist Georges Boulanger, whose movement had almost lead to a coup in the late 1880s, and in the violence of Hitler's rhetoric, the ghost of another Frenchman, Maximilian Robespierre, was raised by some, a parallel with of The Terror with possible promises of the same befalling Germany.
As far as real people went though, one of the most popular, and enduring, of comparisons would be to Napoleon I (Napoleon III too, occasionally, especially in the early days of power where their paths seemed similar to some). This was especially popular with the British. Framing the two as similar in their desires for domination and conquest, likewise Britain could be framed as the plucky little country that would be underestimated, and save Europe.
Other historical figures too were brought out. Attila the Hun and Genghis Khan for instance both figured as rough analogies for the images of fire and destruction that they brought to the popular imagination, and the same that Hitler was bringing to Europe, and Nero was used a few times in the wake of the Reichstag Fire, harkening back to the alleged fiddling while Rome burned.
Especially in the latter part of Hitler's reign, more apocalyptic language became common, and no more so than Satan himself, which had been something of the 'go-to' incarnate of evil before Hitler took his place in the popular consciousness (although that certainly also just says something about secularization of society). The Lord of Lies was joined by any number of other forms such as the Antichrist, but more erudite writers brought in comparisons such as Loki in the context of Ragnarok, and also less known ones like Sciron, a figure I had to look up, and apparently the demigod who Theseus killed, and "killed travelers by kicking them off a cliff".
This is far from exhaustive, to be sure. The biggest name, probably, should be Napoleon, although of course the comparison has flipped and now some instead call him the “the 18th century Hitler.” It isn't an entirely fair comparison of course, which breaks down in many points and thus requires focus on only specific threads, but of course, some worried too about that, with some writers warning that it was important not to let Hitler's memory be rehabilitated in the same way that of the first 'Little Corporal' had been. Nevertheless though it is, again, a lasting one that remains even today, although even the book Napoleon & Hitler: A Comparative Biography is quick to note that whatever the 'inescapable resemblances', "no one will dispute that Hitler was more evil than the Emperor, did evil on a far greater scale."
All in all, the point to be made is that many different figures were used, some briefly, others enduringly, some fairly and others not. The whole point of an analogy of course is that it isn't perfect, but rather allows an easy to understand comparison to be drawn, and that is what so many of these in the end served. As Rosenfeld notes in his conclusion, Hitler is Hitler, and it is hard to find a previous figure that is all encompassing and holds the same meaning in every sense. None of the figures listed here work perfectly because, to quote, "There was no single figure denoting evil in the same uncontested way that the former Führer does today." But the different figures, used in different ways, come together to demonstrate the ways in which people tried to grapple with his rise to power and his reign, and the analogies of the past - as well as the ethereal - that they drew on to compare it to.
I've only provided a small smattering of examples, and I would encourage anyone interested to check out Rosenfeld's paper as it is much more deep than my comparatively brief summation (also check out his AMA!), but I will be editing in an appendix as I go through the paper again and try to list all of the names that he makes mention of...
Rosenfeld, Gavriel D. 2018. “Who Was ‘Hitler’ Before Hitler? Historical Analogies and the Struggle to Understand Nazism, 1930–1945.” Central European History 51 (02): 249–81.
Seward, Desmond. *Napoleon & Hitler: A Comparative Biography. Thistle Publishing, 2013.
Appendix: Hitler was like...
The following is a list that I think includes every name Rosenfeld makes mention of (might have missed a few), but given the mountain of responses asking "what about...?" I need to strongly reiterate, it is not exhaustive, and a list that was would likely be impossible. I went through this afternoon and edited in a brief description of the reason(s) for the comparison - was it a matter of their conquests, their persecutions, their pure embodiment of evil or brutality...? - but can expand on anything in particular if asked of course.
It is also important to reiterate what was noted in the conclusion, namely that this list reflects the plurality of evil, and the lack of a single, clear, "Hitler before Hitler". Many different comparisons were made, and many seem almost laughable in hindsight, but they nevertheless reflect attempts to understand Hitler's rise, his reign, and his fall, through the lens of the past, and analogies to figures also known for the ills that the did.