These days, everyone seems to love bringing up Hitler, but no one enjoys it when he is brought up. The Hitler card is so common that there is even a philosophical concept called "Godwin's Law". That is, the idea that the longer a discussion goes on, the greater the chance of Hitler's mention becomes.
Sadly, it is a fact that Hitler is overused. In fact, when I looked for an image of Hitler to use in the header image, I found an image of Donald Trump. While the Radical Left were quite insistent that Trump was "literally Hitler", the fact is there are no sensible comparisons between Trump and Hitler at all. It's one thing to disagree with Trump's policies, it's another thing to compare him to the most notorious tyrant in history.
But though the Hitler card is overplayed, there are times when it is entirely appropriate. Hitler, of course, was no anomaly. Ideologies similar to his still exist, politicians and apologists still use tactics similar to his, and governments around the world still have the power to do similar things to him. Therefore, there are scenarios in both theological and political discussions when it is entirely legitimate, maybe even ideal, to bring him up.
The most obvious of these would be when discussing anti-semitism. As history's most notorious anti-semite, it makes sense to talk about what Hitler believed, why he believed it, and how he convinced others to believe it too. Furthermore, if we're going to look at how Hitler's regime treated the Jews and say "never again", we should absolutely be discussing preventative measures. Not only do we need to ask what did Hitler believe, why did he believe it, and how did he manage to get others to believe it, but also how did he manage to enforce it by law.
An excellent example of the appropriate use of the Hitler card is the case of Gina Carano, whose "offensive" Tweets were actually rather accurate. While the woke mob decided to cancel her, resulting in her being removed from her role as Cara Dune in the popular series The Mandalorian, all Carano did was point out how the same strategy employed by the Nazis is being employed today. She said "Jews were beaten in the streets, not by Nazi soldiers but by their neighbors…even by children. Because history is edited, most people today don't realize that to get to the point where Nazi soldiers could easily round up thousands of Jews, the government first made their own neighbors hate them simply for being Jews. How is that any different from hating someone for their political views?"
Now, some might say this was poorly worded, but if you're even remotely sensible (which one poll by The Daily Wire suggests a lot of people are), you can see the point she's trying to make, and it is a good one. Divide and conquer is an ancient and effective war tactic. It's easy to oppress a minority when you have the consent of the majority. Not only is this common sense, but it is a truth that has exhibited itself throughout history, with Hitler being the most common example only because he happens to be the one who plunged the world into a second world war.
But these strategies, used by the Nazis, can be used by anyone, and as Carano correctly pointed out, are used today. Another important counter to a repeat of the turmoil of the 20th century is to understand what these people believed, and more importantly, why they believed it. If you take away a person's reason to believe something, you take away the belief itself, and then they're not going to use any strategy to spread that belief.
This makes it entirely legitimate to discuss Hitler's views on Evolution. It turns out, Hitler was a very devout Evolutionist, and his Evolutionary beliefs were a driving factor in His atrocious policies. As Arthur Keith wrote, "The German Führer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution." (1).
Some claim that, far from being an Evolutionist, Hitler actually banned Darwin. To this, Richard Weikart, author of Hitler's Religion: The Twisted Beliefs That Drove The Third Reich, responds "Where, then, did this myth of the Nazis banning Darwin arise? As with many myths, there is a small element of truth, but it was wrenched from its context and blown out of proportion. In 1935 a minor official overseeing the libraries of Saxony published an article in a journal for librarians, in which he recommended banning certain categories of books. One category was: “Works of worldview or biological character whose content is the superficial scientific enlightenment of a primitive Darwinism and monism (Haeckel and those emulating him, as well as Ostwald).” Note that the target was “primitive Darwinism and monism,” not Darwinism per se. Also, the only two authors mentioned were Ernst Haeckel and Wilhelm Ostwald, not Darwin nor any of the myriad of other Darwinists who continued to publish pro-Darwinian science books and articles throughout the Nazi period." (2).
Weikart's article shows that, far from being banned by the Nazis, Darwinism permeated the Nazi-controlled education system from schools to universities, and prominent Nazis were avid Evolutionists, of course following Darwin's belief that "At some future period the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes will no doubt be exterminated. The break will then be rendered wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as at present between the negro or Australian and the gorilla." (3).
Of course, none of this would have mattered if Hitler was just some barmy goon on the street. Unfortunately, he was not. He was a dictator. Hitler's power enabled him to do what he did. Therefore, it just makes sense to compare our leaders with him. We can examine their thought processes and say right, Justin Trudeu believes medical freedom is an "unacceptable view", that's it, we cannot let him hold power. Why? Because when the Nazis were put on trial in Nuremberg, the principle of informed consent was established and universally recognised. You cannot compel someone to accept any medical treatment without both giving them all relevant information, and you cannot compel them at all, they must consent to the process. Of course, this ought to be common sense. But the Nazis disagreed, and it's important that we make sure no government ever has the power to disagree again.
This article is by no means extensive, but I hope I have shown that although the Hitler card is overplayed, there are legitimate contexts in which it can, and probably should be used. Therefore, first of all, think before you use it. Are you making a legitimate comparison, or are you just calling a politician Hitler because you don't like him? But second, when someone else uses it against you, don't brush it off as an overused cliché, think about it. If it's illegitimate, it's easy to brush off. If Donald Trump was Hitler, why didn't he try to shut down CNN, why did he champion and exemplify free speech, why did he support the right to keep and bear arms etc? There are no legitimate comparisons between Hitler and Trump. But when it comes to Trump's successor, Joe Biden, there are plenty of comparisons. His blatant disregard for the constitution, his overreach of power, his rejection of the freedom of expression, bodily autonomy, and the right to keep and bear arms, etc.
It is an unfortunate fact that Hitler is in no way anomalous. Views similar to his continue to exist in our culture, strategies similar to his can still be, and are still being exercised, and many governments, sadly, have the physical ability to repeat his atrocities, or even worse. Therefore, while it has been made a tired cliché to bring up the Nazi regime, there are religious and political contexts in which it is entirely appropriate.
References
1. Keith, Arthur - Evolution and Ethics, Putnam, NY, USA, p. 230, 1947
2. Weikart, Richard - Was Darwinism Banned From Nazi Germany?, Evolution News, November 21st 2016 (link).
3. Darwin, Charles - The Descent of Man, 1871