Centerfield

Hitler also controlled an advanced industrial state that had the resources, geographic location, and historical experience in conquest. After all, Hitler wasn't the first aggressive German leader. I think conquest in that sense is probably unlikely given the interdependence of the international system. Even if a great power like Russia tried to conquer its neighbors, the economic and political consequences would make it untenable. And, however bad Putin is, he's no Hitler. It's unlikely, IMO, that a Hitler type would come to power in a state with the capacity and will to conquest.

That's not to say, however, that large countries will not try to extend their power over neighboring countries through the use of economic, political and military measures. Clearly, Russia, for example, is trying to do that. Frankly, I think the US is doing that as well under the guise of "promoting democracy." So, putting the question in terms of "land grabs" misses the point. In today's world, you don't necessarily need to physically occupy land to control a country. The issue is really not whether another Hitler or Napoleon is possible but whether a country with overwhelming dominance can accomplish much of the same goal.

And, before anyone starts yelling, I am not suggesting that there is any equivalence whatsoever between the United States and Nazi Germany. But the fact is, we need to look at our actions rather than patting ourselves on the back for not being the Roman Empire. Like any country, the US seeks to insure an environment that is hospitable to our interests. We claim that this means liberal,democratic states, but, in practice, we are quite willing to forego that if necessary. That's reality and all the rhetoric of presidents doesn't obscure that.

Such grand conquest was the goal of Saddam Hussein, and was blocked by the fact that even the weakest country can usually find a superpower willing to assist.

That having been said, I believe we'll see in the next century someone of this ilk gain power in Africa, and seek to conquer a large section -- if not all -- of the continent. After all, the West has a history of letting African wars escalate, and a shrewd leader who moved with the speed and precision of Hitler in the early days of WWII could gain control of much of Africa before the world really took notice.

Then the question becomes, is this a bad thing? After all, given the bloody recent history of the region, even a heavy-handed government may be a vast improvement.

Natural disasters on a global scale or the use of nuclear weapons or WMD could create opportunities for megalomania, but another Hitler within grasp of victory? Not in my lifetime. There is too much to keep Russia and China from a closer union, too much sectarian conflict for Muslims to unite and too much power play for any region to fall under a neoHitler. The greatest danger lies in Islamist notions, followed by false-flag operations igniting hostilies between East and West.

A nuke going off -all bets off.

It's a very interesting question. I think in the near term (say the next 100 years) it is unlikely. Grand escapades seem to be dependent upon a single individual wanting it to happen. I'm not sure there is anywhere in the world set up for a single individual to have means, motive and opportunity for such adventures. Putin may arguably have 2 of the factors, but I'm not sure he can avoid stepping down as President when the time comes. No American President will have the time to undertake such things...8 years is simply too short a time.

China would be the only wild card out there, if their present system collapses and is replaced by the old strongman/warlord ideal. Some have speculated that sheer weight of demographics might tempt China to want to expand through militaristic ventures, but I'm not convinced.

From an ideological standpoint, the dominant political views of this age are more inward as opposed to outward looking. In the future we probably should expect corporate bodies (or panels of elite experts) running roughshod over domestic populations. I tend to doubt that such an idelogical vision could be used to effect militaristic ventures.

Good comments. Thanks to Jon for keeping topics rolling here. Despite occasional threads, topics are discussed quite calmly. Comparing relative Democracies and questioning the rise of another Hitler-type government are interesxting topics. Perhaps we can start extropolating the consequences of reversing American foreign policy and fighting the inward war.

Really valuable discussion. The answer is, yes, for sure. Unless you think that globalization, carried on with "failed state" nations, each with mass weapons, and no means of resolving disputes short of force or conferences, implies "stability".
Pope John Paul said "If you want Peace, work for Justice". There is at present no such thing as Justice, internationally. What will happen when there is another "Great Depression"? Circumstamces produce "Great Leaders"; isn't that failure, Hitler, a perfect example?

George W. Bush.

Just like Hitler, only stupid.

Those last two are two of the dumber comments I have ever read and I assume were made simply to be provactive.

Given the size of the territory involved, I think you'd have to say that Mao, just in Tibet, counts as at least as great a conquerer as Hitler. And more recent.

And he managed to keep it, which Hitler didn't. Of course, geography, the weakness of the country that he was attacking, and the fact that Tibet didn't have any obvious major allies lined up, all helped him. But still . . . .