We've been living under Hitler's spell – time to wake up
The age of Hitler was not the Thirties and Forties: it has been our own lifetimes. It began in the Forties, was in full swing by the Sixties and is only now, it seems, coming to an end.
In the post-war era, Adolf Hitler has been our most potent, unifying figure. He remains our touchstone and our backstop. In a world where we seem increasingly unable to agree on anything, we can still almost entirely agree on condemning him. Anyone who defends Hitler thereby reveals themselves to be a monster. Whenever we want to condemn someone, we almost instinctively compare them to him. His indisputable evil makes him a unique fixed reference-point in our moral landscape.
For example, as soon as Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, memes of Vladimir Putin as Hitler began to appear – even as Putin himself stridently (and absurdly) claimed that his war aim was to 'denazify' Ukraine. Hillary Clinton is one of many people to have called Donald Trump a new Hitler, and compared Trump's 2024 rally at Madison Square Garden, in New York, to the notorious pro-Nazi rally that took place there in 1939. Boris Johnson compared the EU to Hitler; conversely, during the height of Brexit rancour, he himself was regularly depicted with a toothbrush moustache. Even now, it seems, we still define our values with reference to the Nazis. We cannot shake our fascination.
I first remember hearing Hitler's name in the late Seventies. I think I was about six years old. I asked my mother something like: who is the worst person ever? Well, who else could she possibly have chosen? Who else would you choose? My next flash of memory – though it might, in reality, have been months later – is of asking her: has anyone ever written a book about Hitler? I remember feeling at the time that my second question was slightly shameful. My instinct was that it was wrong to write a book about a bad man; it was probably wrong even to want to know more about him. But my mother surprised me by pointing to our bookshelves, and a fat hardback with that dreaded name on the spine in barefaced capitals: my father's copy of Alan Bullock's 1952 biography Hitler: A Study in Tyranny. 'Oh, yes,' she said, 'there are lots.'
There are indeed, and more every year: not just because Hitler was an enormously consequential figure, but because I'm not the only person to have found his evil fascinating. We cannot stop retelling and reinventing his story, and the endlessly rich story of the war against him. A lifetime later, the films, the books, the ever more tenuous documentaries keep coming; to judge by the schedule of the History Channel, and the lists of many publishers, the Second World War is almost the only event in human history. And historians are forced to share Hitler with storytellers and myth-makers – anyone who wants to stiffen whatever they're drinking with a shot of cheap moral spirits. Sauron, the Daleks, Darth Vader, Lord Voldemort: they're all, unmistakably and unashamedly, Nazi tribute acts.
The age of Hitler is the age in which the Western victors of the Second World War have set the terms of global conversation. Many of us have lived the majority of our lives in an era of broad and stable consensus about our most basic shared values. Human lives are fundamentally of equal worth; all human beings have fundamental and inalienable rights; our lives, bodies and consciences belong to us and to no-one else. These truths seem self-evident to the point of banality. Nonetheless, most people in most periods of human history have not believed any such things.
And consider what happens when anyone refuses to conform to those supposedly universal anti-Nazi values. For example, in Zimbabwe in the late Nineties, Chenjerai Hunzvi, a particularly brutal enforcer acting on behalf of Robert Mugabe, adopted and gloried in the nickname 'Hitler'. It signalled his ruthlessness to the regime's opponents, to terrify them and to defy any criticism they might level at him. On that level, it worked. For the rest of the world, though, it only cemented the view that Zimbabwe's rulers had become mere predators, and contributed to Mugabe's ostracism on the international stage.
Deliberately aligning yourself with Hitler is rare. More commonly, people or movements discredit themselves with unintended or ill-concealed echoes of Nazism. The most obvious examples of this are found in the persistent tendency of many anti-Israeli and anti-Zionist movements around the world to stray, or lapse, into open anti-Semitism. For most of my lifetime, people in Western societies who broke that taboo have automatically ostracised themselves. It's a mark of the end of the age of Hitler that that taboo is clearly decaying.
Belligerence, too, can activate our anti-Nazi antibodies. Vladimir Putin may have been surprised that his invasion of Ukraine in 2022 met with such a startlingly different Western response from the one received by his war in Chechnya, or his annexation of Crimea. But those earlier acts hadn't involved a full-scale, unconcealed armed invasion of a neighbouring sovereign state. When Putin tried such an act, it triggered Europe's collective memories of 1938-40.
I'm not the first person to notice that the modern world is preoccupied by Nazism, nor that the Nazis have an outsized role in our ethics. But the people who make this point often come from one end of the political spectrum. Take the French writer Renaud Camus, notorious as the originator of the far-Right conspiracy theory the 'Great Replacement': he has lamented what he calls 'the second career of Adolf Hitler', meaning the Führer's career as a moral symbol. Camus and other activists resent how the spectre of Nazism is invoked when they propose mass expulsion of immigrants, purges of the judiciary or restrictions on Muslims' religious freedoms. It's time, these people believe, that we stop being frightened of bogeymen with swastikas.
This is not my view. I don't want us to unlearn the lessons of Nazism, lessons that were learned at such a terrible cost. To recognise Hitler as representing a truly exceptional evil is the beginning of wisdom. But this recognition isn't enough. Simply knowing that Hitler was a monster is not an adequate guide to the world we live in. In Britain our instinct has long been to compare every crisis to the Second World War: we even, ludicrously, tried it with Covid-19. There are some evils which the age of Hitler has simply not prepared us to face, and some misleading lessons it has taught us. Shouting 'Nazi!' at each other is a hopeless way to deal with our economic, environmental and demographic crises. And a knee-jerk rejection of 'appeasement', on its own, is a poor guide to international relations in a nuclear age.
Our values are more fragile than we think. Our sense of what's right and wrong, our deep convictions about justice and human rights, feel like timeless, self-evident truths, and we can't help looking down on ancestors who didn't have the wit to see them. Nor can we help believing that, now we've grasped those truths, we'll never let go of them. Surely people will always believe in democracy and human rights; surely the arc of the moral universe does bend towards justice? But this is demonstrably, factually incorrect. Our values, my values, your values, are the outcome of a particular historical process, a process in which the Second World War was decisive.
And now those values are again on the move. On the Right, across Europe and beyond, the taboo against parties that have a whiff of fascism has virtually gone. Trump's acolytes play with 'Hitler salutes' and the like because they enjoy making their opponents splutter with outrage. Meanwhile, on the Left, the new identity politics of race and gender have challenged ideas that used to be truisms, such as simple egalitarianism, the aspiration to be colour-blind or the conviction that anti-Semitism is an exceptional evil to be avoided at all costs. Indeed both sides, to no-one's surprise, have started spitting venom about Jews again.
We can strive to keep the post-1945 consensus going, but the war is falling off the edge of living memory. Like it or not, the age of Hitler, the age when appalled fascination with the Nazis dominated our moral imagination, is coming to an end. The question is: what will come next?
The Age of Hitler and How We Will Survive It by Alec Ryrie (Reaktion, £15.95) will be published on July 1. Alec Ryrie will be speaking at Oxford Literary Festival, in partnership with The Telegraph, on July 30. Tickets: oxfordliteraryfestival.org

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Hill
23 minutes ago
- The Hill
Rep. Greg Steube says passing Trump megabill in the House will likely ‘be a challenge'
Rep. Greg Steube (R-Fla.) said on Monday passing President Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' in the House will likely 'be a challenge.' 'I do think you're gonna have some challenges on the House side. We can only lose three votes,' Steube told NewsNation's Blake Burman on 'The Hill.' 'You've got 218 you got to get to, we can only lose three, if we lose four the bill's dead, and you've got things in here that moderates don't like, and you've got things in here that conservatives don't like. So, it is certainly going to be a challenge.' House moderate Republicans and hard-line conservatives have recently expressed rising opposition to the Senate's version of the 'big, beautiful bill' only days before the lower chamber is set to consider the legislation. Democrats have already expressed their own vehement distaste for the bill, with members like Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) calling it a 'big bad betrayal bill' and Rep. Maxwell Frost (D-Fla.) saying it is an 'evil bill.' 'If Republicans pass this big bad betrayal bill, they are quite literally ensuring that more poor Americans will DIE so that billionaires and giant corporations can get a tax cut,' Jayapal said in a post on the social platform X Monday. Former close Trump ally Elon Musk said Monday he would support primary challengers to any Republicans who backed Trump's 'big, beautiful bill.' 'Every member of Congress who campaigned on reducing government spending and then immediately voted for the biggest debt increase in history should hang their head in shame!' Musk said on X.
Yahoo
31 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Democrats fail to overturn ruling that tax cuts in GOP megabill don't add to deficit
The Senate voted along party lines Monday that making the expiring 2017 tax cuts permanent as part of President Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' could be scored as deficit neutral and therefore comply with the Byrd Rule, allowing the bill to pass with a simple-majority vote. Democrats failed to defeat the ruling by the Senate chair, which Republicans control, that the chamber's 940-page One Big, Beautiful Bill Act does not violate the 1974 Congressional Budget Act by using a controversial 'current policy' baseline to score the extension of President Trump's expiring tax cuts as not adding to the deficit. If the tax portion of the bill were scored on a 'current law' baseline, which assumes the 2017 Trump tax cuts would expire at the end of 2025, then it would add an estimated $3.5 trillion to federal deficits between 2025-34 and would add to deficits after 2034 — beyond the 10-year budget window allowed by the Byrd Rule. Scored this way, the Republican bill would fail the rule, which governs what legislation is eligible to pass the Senate with a simple-majority vote on the reconciliation fast track, and Republicans would be forced to rewrite large parts of the measure. But when scored with a 'current policy' baseline, the Congressional Budget Office projects the tax cuts in the Finance Committee's section of the bill would increase deficits by not more than $1.5 trillion between 2025-34 and would not increase on-budget deficits after 2034. Democrats argued a current policy baseline had never been used before in a budget reconciliation bill, and had never been used to score an extension of expiring tax cuts as not adding to future deficits, and therefore was not in compliance with the Senate's Byrd Rule. And Democrats highlighted over the weekend that most of the Republican reconciliation package uses a 'current law' baseline to project the cost of the legislation. Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer (N.Y.) accused Republicans of 'deploying fake math and budgetary hocus-pocus to make it seem like their billionaire giveaways don't cost anything.' Senate Finance Committee ranking member Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) accused Republicans of 'going nuclear' to blow up the Senate rules so they can make Trump's 2017 tax cuts permanent. 'This is the nuclear option. It's just hidden behind a whole lot of Washington, D.C., lingo,' Wyden said on the floor. Wyden pointed out through a parliamentary inquiry that the Finance portion of the bill used two different baselines, current policy and current law. Senate Democrats had tried to schedule a meeting with Republican Budget Committee staff and with the parliamentarian to discuss whether using a current policy baseline violated Senate precedent and the Byrd Rule, but Republicans 'flat-out refused' to participate in such a meeting, according to a person familiar with the conversations. Senate Budget Committee Chair Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said Monday morning that Republicans are not overruling the parliamentarian and asserted the parliamentarian has said it is up to him as Budget chair to set the baseline. And he argued Democrats in the past have supported the use of a current policy baseline to project the cost of legislation, although it hasn't been done before for a budget reconciliation package. He noted former Democratic Budget Committee Chair Kent Conrad (N.D.) used a current policy baseline for a past farm bill. Republicans also point out former President Obama's budget office supported using a current policy baseline to score the extension of the expiring tax cuts from the George W. Bush era at the end of 2012. Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) said on the floor Monday that former Obama Director of the Office of Management and Budget Jeff Zients supported using the current policy baseline for the 2012 fiscal cliff deal. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.


CBS News
42 minutes ago
- CBS News
Hundreds of National Guard forces deployed to L.A. by Trump could be sent to wildfire duty
Why is Trump allowed to keep the National Guard in L.A.? A military commander has discussed shifting some California National Guard troops away from the Trump administration's weekslong deployment to deal with protests in Los Angeles so they can help fight wildfires, two U.S. officials told CBS News. Gen. Gregory Guillot, the leader of U.S. Northern Command, made the request to Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, proposing that 200 out of roughly 4,000 California National Guard members be moved from Los Angeles to wildfire duty elsewhere in California. The request to shift some troops to wildfire duty was first reported by The Associated Press. The purpose of the possible move is to help prepare for wildfire season, one U.S. official said. The other official said they could be placed on standby to respond to wildfires. Wildfires can happen at any time of year in California, but they usually peak in the summer and fall. The state expects an "early and active season" this year, with above-average activity in July and August, according to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, or Cal Fire. The Los Angeles deployment has been controversial and subject to legal challenges. President Trump called up around 4,000 Guard members — and deployed around 700 Marines — over California Gov. Gavin Newsom's objections, moves Mr. Trump argued were necessary to protect federal buildings and immigration agents from chaotic protests against Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Newsom argued the deployment was illegal and unnecessary. When Mr. Trump initially called up the California National Guard to deal with protests, the state had warned the move could interfere with its wildfire response. The state relies on Guard forces to supplement crews from Cal Fire — and as wildfires become more frequent and severe, state officials have said more resources are needed. Newsom's office said last week the Guard's firefighting force was only at 40% capacity due to the Los Angeles deployment. "This deployment comes when California is in the midst of peak wildfire season for both Northern and Southern California and may need to rely on their crucial support," the state of California wrote in a lawsuit against the Trump administration over the deployment. A federal district court judge initially sided with the state in its lawsuit, but a panel of appellate court judges paused that ruling, allowing Mr. Trump to maintain control of the Guard. The troops were shifted to federal service earlier this month under a law known as Title 10, which lets the president call up National Guard forces during a "rebellion" or if "the president is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States." The Trump administration argued those conditions were met due to threats of violence against immigration agents who carried out arrests in the Los Angeles area. Newsom objected to the move, and the state quickly filed a lawsuit calling it a "power grab." The state argued that under the law cited by the administration, Mr. Trump does not have the legal authority to call up the Guard without permission from the governor. A three-judge panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit ultimately sided with the Trump administration, allowing troops to remain in Los Angeles while the state's lawsuit is heard. The court wrote that Mr. Trump most likely "lawfully exercised his statutory authority" to federalize the Guard, and that the law "does not give governors any veto power."