The geopolitical situation today merits comparison with the pre-World War II Europe  

Lt Gen. HJS Sachdev (retd)

‘The whole problem with the world is that fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts’ 

—Bertrand Russel

The disintegration of the interwar international order did not begin with invasion by Nazi Germany but with the steady normalisation of coercion and selective rule breaking. In contemporary global politics, a similar pattern is discernible. Unilateral economic warfare, explicit threats of force, and the marginalisation of multilateral institutions increasingly define international conduct. Comparison with the Thirties now merits serious scholarly reassessment.

This article explores whether recent behaviour by dominant powers, particularly the United States under its current leadership, can be meaningfully compared with the actions of revisionist states in pre–World War II Europe, notably Nazi Germany. In addition to evaluating moral equivalence, there is a need to critically examine structural, functional, and institutional parallels that could prevent threat to global stability and security in the emerging ground realities and geopolitical scenario.

Total Internal Consolidation

Between 1933 and 1935, Adolf Hitler moved methodically to consolidate total control within Germany. The process of Gleichschaltung—coordination--was less chaotic revolution than disciplined internal takeover. Political opposition was eliminated, trade unions dissolved, rival parties outlawed, and the judiciary, media, and civil service subordinated to Nazi authority. 

By 1934, the institutional guardrails of the Weimar Republic had effectively vanished. Rearmament began cautiously in defiance of Treaty of Versailles (seen as humiliating instrument against Germany), first in secret, then with increasing boldness. Europe protested rhetorically but did little more. The Anglo-German Naval Agreement of 1935, allowing Germany to expand its navy within agreed limits, signaled something important--treaty violations could be regularised through negotiation. France objected but would not act alone. Germany learns that violations bring negotiation, not punishment.

Modern Equivalent: The US elections in 2024 were fought on nationalism in which there were two main planks. First, the economic debt (seen as exploitation of the US by the rest of the world) and second, Make America Great Again (MAGA), acronym for American nationalism. The successful campaign and election of Donald Trump as President of the United States (POTUS) is seeing aggressive follow up policies that has set the cat among the pigeons. 

Tariff war was unleashed on the rest of the world. Use of economic coercion and threats without multilateral sanction and in contravention of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) framework set the ball rolling. It was a test whether and how the nations and institutions react. Some of the nations protested, some cut a deal, and poor and the weak kept silent. Acquiescence and silence gave the first round to the US. 

Internal checks and balances, in the form of US Congress and the US Supreme Court, have been stymied. The Congress is invisible and the US Supreme Court has deferred its ruling on the tariffs twice for two plausible reasons: One, to find a way (under pressure) to legally approve actions of POTUS and two, delay the verdict till deals are struck with other nations. Explains why US leadership is in a hurry!

The upward revision of the US defence budget from USD901 billion to USD1.5 trillion is an ominous sign of US developing military might that the fractured world would not be able to counter. Does it sound like a situation similar to Germany rearming itself beyond its security needs?