compare 5 points in donald trumps speeches with those of adolf hitler
ChatGPT said:
Comparing speeches by Donald Trump and Adolf Hitler is a sensitive and complex task. It’s important to note that while rhetorical techniques may sometimes overlap across political figures (e.g., appealing to nationalism or using populist language), the historical contexts, ideologies, and outcomes of their leadership are vastly different.
That said, here’s a comparative look at five rhetorical or thematic points often discussed in academic or journalistic analyses — not equating the two figures, but rather examining rhetorical parallels.
1. Nationalism and “Making the Country Great Again”
Trump: Frequently used slogans like “Make America Great Again” to evoke a return to a perceived better past, often emphasizing American exceptionalism.
Hitler: Promoted “Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer” (One People, One Empire, One Leader), focusing on reviving German pride and power after WWI and the Treaty of Versailles.
Similarity: Both appealed to national pride and a nostalgic vision of a lost golden age.
2. Scapegoating of Outsiders
Trump: Spoke harshly about illegal immigrants, particularly from Mexico, labeling them as criminals and calling for a border wall.
Hitler: Blamed Jews, communists, and others for Germany’s problems, using them as scapegoats to unify the majority.
Similarity: Both used scapegoating to create a sense of “us vs. them” and to rally support around a common enemy.
3. Attacks on the Press
Trump: Repeatedly called the media “fake news” and “the enemy of the people,” undermining trust in journalism.
Hitler: Called the press the “lying press” (Lügenpresse) and took steps to control and censor the media after gaining power.
Similarity: Both discredited the press as a tool of opposition, portraying it as dishonest or dangerous.
4. Populist Appeal
Trump: Framed himself as a voice for the “forgotten” American, criticizing elites and positioning himself as an outsider to Washington politics.
Hitler: Spoke as a man of the people against the political establishment of the Weimar Republic, claiming to restore the will of the common German.
Similarity: Both used anti-elitist language to appeal to mass dissatisfaction and presented themselves as the solution.
5. Strongman Persona and Law-and-Order Messaging
Trump: Emphasized “law and order” during civil unrest and portrayed himself as a tough leader who would restore order.
Hitler: Promised strict control, discipline, and the end of chaos under the Nazi regime, emphasizing authority and militarization.
Similarity: Both emphasized strength, order, and control in the face of perceived chaos or disorder.
ElevenLabs and News Over Audio (Noa) using AI narration. Listen to more stories on the Noa app.
To support The Atlantic’s journalism, please consider subscribing today.
Rhetoric has a history. The words democracy and tyranny were debated in ancient Greece; the phrase separation of powers became important in the 17th and 18th centuries. The word vermin, as a political term, dates from the 1930s and ’40s, when both fascists and communists liked to describe their political enemies as vermin, parasites, and blood infections, as well as insects, weeds, dirt, and animals. The term has been revived and reanimated, in an American presidential campaign, with Donald Trump’s description of his opponents as “radical-left thugs” who “live like vermin.”
This language isn’t merely ugly or repellent: These words belong to a particular tradition. Adolf Hitler used these kinds of terms often. In 1938, he praised his compatriots who had helped “cleanse Germany of all those parasites who drank at the well of the despair of the Fatherland and the People.” In occupied Warsaw, a 1941 poster displayed a drawing of a louse with a caricature of a Jewish face. The slogan: “Jews are lice: they cause typhus.” Germans, by contrast, were clean, pure, healthy, and vermin-free. Hitler once described the Nazi flag as “the victorious sign of freedom and the purity of our blood.”
Stalin used the same kind of language at about the same time. He called his opponents the “enemies of the people,” implying that they were not citizens and that they enjoyed no rights. He portrayed them as vermin, pollution, filth that had to be “subjected to ongoing purification,” and he inspired his fellow communists to employ similar rhetoric. In my files, I have the notes from a 1955 meeting of the leaders of the Stasi, the East German secret police, during which one of them called for a struggle against “vermin activities” (there is, inevitably, a German word for this: Schädlingstätigkeiten), by which he meant the purge and arrest of the regime’s critics. In this same era, the Stasi forcibly moved suspicious people away from the border with West Germany, a project nicknamed “Operation Vermin.”
This kind of language was not limited to Europe. Mao Zedong also described his political opponents as “poisonous weeds.” Pol Pot spoke of “cleansing” hundreds of thousands of his compatriots so that Cambodia would be “purified.”
In each of these very different societies, the purpose of this kind of rhetoric was the same. If you connect your opponents with disease, illness, and poisoned blood, if you dehumanize them as insects or animals, if you speak of squashing them or cleansing them as if they were pests or bacteria, then you can much more easily arrest them, deprive them of rights, exclude them, or even kill them. If they are parasites, they aren’t human. If they are vermin, they don’t get to enjoy freedom of speech, or freedoms of any kind. And if you squash them, you won’t be held accountable.
Until recently, this kind of language was not a normal part of American presidential politics. Even George Wallace’s notorious, racist, neo-Confederate 1963 speech, his inaugural speech as Alabama governor and the prelude to his first presidential campaign, avoided such language. Wallace called for “segregation today, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever.” But he did not speak of his political opponents as “vermin” or talk about them poisoning the nation’s blood. Franklin D. Roosevelt’s Executive Order 9066, which ordered Japanese Americans into internment camps following the outbreak of World War II, spoke of “alien enemies” but not parasites.
In the 2024 campaign, that line has been crossed. Trump blurs the distinction between illegal immigrants and legal immigrants—the latter including his wife, his late ex-wife, the in-laws of his running mate, and many others. He has said of immigrants, “They’re poisoning the blood of our country” and “They’re destroying the blood of our country.” He has claimed that many have “bad genes.” He has also been more explicit: “They’re not humans; they’re animals”; they are “cold-blooded killers.” He refers more broadly to his opponents—American citizens, some of whom are elected officials—as “the enemy from within … sick people, radical-left lunatics.” Not only do they have no rights; they should be “handled by,” he has said, “if necessary, National Guard, or if really necessary, by the military.”
In using this language, Trump knows exactly what he is doing. He understands which era and what kind of politics this language evokes. “I haven’t read Mein Kampf,” he declared, unprovoked, during one rally—an admission that he knows what Hitler’s manifesto contains, whether or not he has actually read it. “If you don’t use certain rhetoric,” he told an interviewer, “if you don’t use certain words, and maybe they’re not very nice words, nothing will happen.”
His talk of mass deportation is equally calculating. When he suggests that he would target both legal and illegal immigrants, or use the military arbitrarily against U.S. citizens, he does so knowing that past dictatorships have used public displays of violence to build popular support. By calling for mass violence, he hints at his admiration for these dictatorships but also demonstrates disdain for the rule of law and prepares his followers to accept the idea that his regime could, like its predecessors, break the law with impunity.
These are not jokes, and Trump is not laughing. Nor are the people around him. Delegates at the Republican National Convention held up prefabricated signs: Mass Deportation Now. Just this week, when Trump was swaying to music at a surreal rally, he did so in front of a huge slogan: Trump Was Right About Everything. This is language borrowed directly from Benito Mussolini, the Italian fascist. Soon after the rally, the scholar Ruth Ben-Ghiat posted a photograph of a building in Mussolini’s Italy displaying his slogan: Mussolini Is Always Right.
The Atlantic Daily: The atmosphere of a Trump rally
These phrases have not been put on posters and banners at random in the final weeks of an American election season. With less than three weeks left to go, most candidates would be fighting for the middle ground, for the swing voters. Trump is doing the exact opposite. Why? There can be only one answer: because he and his campaign team believe that by using the tactics of the 1930s, they can win. The deliberate dehumanization of whole groups of people; the references to police, to violence, to the “bloodbath” that Trump has said will unfold if he doesn’t win; the cultivation of hatred not only against immigrants but also against political opponents—none of this has been used successfully in modern American politics.
But neither has this rhetoric been tried in modern American politics. Several generations of American politicians have assumed that American voters, most of whom learned to pledge allegiance to the flag in school, grew up with the rule of law, and have never experienced occupation or invasion, would be resistant to this kind of language and imagery. Trump is gambling—knowingly and cynically—that we are not.
Meta whistleblower alleges company worked with China on censorship
Lily Jamali
North America Technology Correspondent
Reporting fromSan Francisco
A Meta whistleblower told US senators on Wednesday that the company undermined national security in order to build a $18 billion business in China.
At a congressional hearing, Sarah Wynn-Williams, a former global public policy director at Facebook, said she watched as executives decided to provide the Chinese Communist Party with access to the data of Meta users, including that of Americans.
Meta has disputed Ms Wynn-Williams’s statements.
“Sarah Wynn-Williams’ testimony is divorced from reality and riddled with false claims,” said Meta spokesman Ryan Daniels.
Mr Daniels said CEO Mark Zuckerberg has been public about the company’s interest in offering its services in China, but added. “[T]he fact is this: we do not operate our services in China today.”
Meta does, however, generate advertising revenue from advertisers based in China.
During her testimony before a Senate judiciary subcommittee, Ms Wynn-Williams also alleged the parent company of Facebook and Instagram worked “hand in glove” with Beijing to build censorship tools aimed at silencing critics of the Chinese Community Party.
Specifically, she said Meta capitulated to China’s demands that it delete the Facebook account of Guo Wengui, a Chinese dissident living in the US.
Meta maintains it unpublished Mr Guo’s page and suspended his profile because it violated the company’s Community Standards.
“One thing the Chinese Communist Party and Mark Zuckerberg share is that they want to silence their critics. I can say that from personal experience,” Ms Wynn-Williams said during her testimony.
In March, Ms Wynn-Williams released a memoir called “Careless People” about her experience at the company, which was then called Facebook.
Meta won an emergency ruling in the US that temporarily blocked her from promoting her book, which included several critical claims about her time at the company.
“[T]he false and defamatory book should never have been published,” Meta said at the time.
Wednesday’s hearing before members of the US Senate was led by Senator Josh Hawley, a Republican from Missouri.
Sen Hawley opened the hearing by saying Meta had “stopped at absolutely nothing to prevent” Wednesday’s testimony by Ms Wynn-Williams, who joins Frances Haugen and Arturo Béjar as former employees who have spoken out against the social media giant.
“Why is it that Facebook is so desperate to prevent this witness from telling what she knows?” Hawley said.
At a fiery January 2024 congressional hearing at which Mr Zuckerberg also testified, Sen Hawley demanded that the CEO apologise to families who said their children had been harmed by social media.
Behind Mr Zuckerberg at the 2024 hearing sat a row of families who said their children had self-harmed or killed themselves as a result of social media content.
Mr Zuckerberg turned and told families in the audience that “no one should go through” what they had.
During Wednesday’s hearing, Sen Hawley said Meta had suggested Ms Wynn-Williams could face financial penalties for speaking out.
“They have threatened her with $50,000 in punitive damages every time she mentions Facebook in public, even if the statements that she is making are true,” Sen Hawley alleged. “Even as we sit here today, Facebook is attempting her total and complete financial ruin.”
On Wednesday, the company told the BBC the $50,000 in damages is for each material violation of the separation agreement that she signed when she departed the company in 2017.
Ms Wynn-Williams says Meta told her that creating exceptions to the non-disparagement agreement would “eat the rule,” which Meta later clarified to the BBC was the comment of an arbitrator, not the company.
The company added that she was not restricted from testifying before Congress.
But Meta declined to directly respond to a BBC inquiry about whether Ms Wynn-Williams may indeed face financial penalties initiated by the company or its lawyers for statements she made on Wednesday in front of Congress.
Ms Wynn-Williams told lawmakers that all of this had taken a personal toll on her.
“The last four weeks have been very difficult,” she told members of the Senate committee. “Even the choice to come and speak to Congress is incredibly difficult.”
Greenland is in strategically important territory.
Most of Greenland lies within the Arctic Circle, a region that the world’s powers are vying for over for its untapped natural resources and its proximity to emerging shipping corridors that would accelerate global trade. Already, melting Arctic ice has transformed the region that was once largely unnavigable into an area of competitive commerce, as more ships traverse the Arctic Circle and countries with land in the region scramble to lay claim to as much of the seabed as possible.
Routes between Asia and Europe, or Asia and the United States, are about 40 percent shorter through the Arctic than either the Suez or Panama Canals, according to the U.S. Naval Institute. That makes the question of who controls the seas there critical for both financial and security purposes, especially given the claimants also happen to be rival geopolitical superpowers.
Only five countries can claim to have an extended continental shelf into the Arctic: Canada, Russia, Norway, Denmark via Greenland, and the United States via Alaska. Acquiring Greenland would give the United States a significantly bigger claim in the Arctic.
“We need Greenland for national security and even international security,” Mr. Trump said in March during an address to Congress, adding the territory was “very, very important for military security.”
The United States has had troops in Greenland since World War II, and keeps a small missile defense base there called Pituffik Space Base — formerly Thule Air Base, before Mr. Trump renamed it during his first administration. The delegation will be touring that base on Friday.
It is possible that base could become part of the “Golden Dome” missile defense system, modeled after Israel’s Iron Dome system, that Mr. Trump has said he wants to build to protect the entirety of the United States from potential threats from adversaries, especially China. In an executive order, Mr. Trump told Pete Hegseth, the secretary of defense, to produce the plans for that missile defense shield by March 28.
But there are market-based threats Mr. Trump is concerned with as well. Russia and China are already cooperating on Arctic shipping routes, and with Russia’s extensive presence in the region — it has the largest area of Arctic coastline — that partnership threatens to remain the dominant economic force in the area.
Greenland could be a rich source for rare earth minerals and energy.
According to the U.S. Geological Survey, the Arctic holds 13 percent of undiscovered oil resources and 30 percent of undiscovered natural gas, most of it offshore. Controlling Greenland would give the United States an expanded claim to those seabed resources.
But Greenland also has huge stores of rare earth minerals that are vital to the production of batteries, cellphones, electric vehicles and other technology — and the Trump administration has been looking globally to augment its rare earth mineral holdings.
Rare earth minerals have been an instrumental part of an agreement that the United States has been trying to strike with Ukraine. Greenland’s stores of cobalt, nickel, copper, lithium, zirconium and other minerals have proven challenging to mine, but there is another incentive for the United States to seek to control that market: China.
China dominates the world’s raw mineral market, and has already attempted to make inroads in Greenland. Acquiring the territory would allow Mr. Trump to check Beijing’s efforts to exploit minerals there and expand America’s holdings.
Part of the reason it has been difficult to exploit Greenland’s resources to date is that it is so darn cold. But with climate change, melting ice is creating new opportunities for resource exploitation. In the last 30 years, about 11,000 square miles of ice sheet have melted, an area about the size of Maryland.
Denmark has also recognized the potential of Greenland’s resources to be vital in the global transition to greener forms of energy. The local population sees the potential for an economic boon from mining as helpful in its bid for independence, which a majority of the population wants.
But the development of the industry has been slow. Greenland has taken steps to limit the potential for environmentally destructive mining practices through laws, including a ban on uranium mining in 2021. But those could be overturned if the United States acquires the territory.
A correction was made on
March 25, 2025
:
An earlier version of this article misstated how much of the world’s undiscovered resources are in the Arctic. It holds 13 percent of undiscovered oil resources, not gas resources.
What is the cost to move ships through the Panama Canal?
The cost to transit the Panama Canal depends on the vessel’s size and type, with fees ranging from a few thousand dollars for smaller private boats to hundreds of thousands, or even millions, for large commercial ships, especially when bidding for expedited slots. (Retrieved Internet 3/31/25)
Donald Trump and his cronies can just get ready to pay for the service to use the Island just like everybody else. Let’s stop this nonsense about military takeovers before someone gets hurt. Donald have you totally lost your mind??????
webby1dotnet 