Obviously, somebody here is woefully defective in their understandings of history, but it's not Victor Davis Hanson.
Hitler invaded five different territories before Neville Chamberlain figured out what he was up to.
In four of those territories, Hitler's armies were wildly welcomed by majority-German populations: Rhineland, Saarland, Austria and Czechoslovakia.
Each time the western allies backed down, did nothing, negotiated for "peace in our time".
So Hitler reasonably got the firm conviction that he could go anywhere, do anything, and the allies were "worms".
He was therefore genuinely shocked -- yes, shocked! -- when they declared war on Germany just for invading Poland.
But by then it was far too late to stop Hitler, and the Second World War was on.
Putin today, like Hitler in 1938 has two territories under his belt -- Georgia and Crimea -- and is working on his third, Eastern Ukraine.
So the question is: where will the West draw a serious line to stop him? After his second territory? Or the third?
Or do we give Putin, like Hitler, four countries before we draw the line at the fifth?
BarnacleCenturion: "The Hitler comparisons are ridiculous.
Hitler invaded countries killing millions.
How many people have the Russians killed in Ukraine?"
No, FRiend, it's you who are woefully defective in your understandings of history.
Putin today is precisely equivalent to democratically elected Chancellor Hitler in, say, 1938 -- he merely claims to occupy what is "rightfully" his.
And the West today, like Chamberlain in 1938, negotiates & negotiates to achieve "peace in our time".
I didn’t have time to listen to Hanson’s lecture, but I do have great respect for him and will make time to do so later.
Some initial observations:
There are aspects of Hitler and Putin that are parallel and some that differ, so it’s best to go down the list.
1. Assumed power legally according to the Constitution in effect at the time: Hitler: yes. Putin: Yes.
2. Assumed total dictatorial control within the legal framework of the state: Hitler, yes. Putin; well on his way.
3. Used a manufactured domestic crisis to extinguish civil liberties and political opposition: Hitler, yes. Putin; no.
4. Ran a domestic fascist economy based on nominal private enterprise with real control residing in central bureaucratic organs: Hitler: yes. Putin: yes.
5. Sought to re-unify national ethnic populations outside their borders within their own country: Hitler: yes. Putin: yes (that’s kind of what this discussion is all about).
6. Took advantage of weak international opposition to accomplish goals: Hitler: yes. Putin: yes, times two.
7. Sought to return or establish their nation to it’s “rightful place” in the international order. Hitler: yes. Putin: yes.
8. The combination of all of the above triggered a global military and diplomatic catastrophe: Hitler: yes. Putin: ?
9. Sought the extermination of distinct ethnic minorities through a program that began with persecution and ended with industrial scale mass murder: Hitler: yes. Putin: No.
10. Failed to develop a philosophical/constitutional framework that would perpetuate the concept of their state beyond the time of their own rule. Hitler: yes. Putin: ? but current indications are yes.
I do see distinct parallels on a simple checklist basis, but also see large distinctions. Numbers 7 & 8 are probably subject to much further discussion. Hitler’s war was a miscalculation on everyone’s part. In fact, the two major wars of the 20th century were the product of miscalculations, and they were mutual to both sides. Not sure if that will happen again. Also, while both Hitler and Putin sought/seek to restore a sense of injured national pride, there are different underlying factors at work. I don’t believe Putin ever publicly stated he wanted “Lebensraum” at the expense of other nations; instead, he wants to put the USSR back together under new management.
Further discussion welcomed.
“In four of those territories, Hitler’s armies were wildly welcomed by majority-German populations”
Is the Russian army in Ukraine right now?
That’s the slight difference between both situations that you and Victor Davis Hanson seem to be ignoring.
Russia did not take Crimea by force.
When the Russian army begins crossing borders and holding territory you might have a point. Until then the comparisons don’t make any sense.
This conflict was caused by the overthrow of the Ukrainian government earlier this year. Russia is only reacting to defend itself.
So how do you propose to do this?