Nowadays if you wanted to make a point that someone is really evil, you might compare them to Hitler. But before Hitler came into power, who was considered the most evil person ever to exist? And did people make comparisons to this person in the same manner as modern comparisons to Hitler?
I've written on this before, which I'll repost here. I would stress one thing though, namely that this answers a broader question that what was asked here. Some of the comparisons are about evil and most relevant here, but not all are figures of evil. This tracks not only what Hitler was compared to, but how those comparisons changed from his rise to power, to his rulership, his conquering, and eventually, of course, the fall of the Third Reich:
Prior to the arrival of Godwin's Law, and the inevitable conclusion of comparing all things to Hitler, during his own rise, Hitler was compared to many people, both real and imagined. Gavriel D. Rosenfeld kindly has done much of the legwork in providing what is the up to what is perhaps the most comprehensive study of this niche topic, and breaks down the comparisons into several broad groups, although they were not entirely exclusive:
The specific 'class', and specific figures within it, were often drawn on to illustrate specific themes, and the favor shown to certain ones over others often shifted through Hitler's rise and rule.
For instance, in his early days, prior to coming to power, it wasn't uncommon to compare Hitler to his future second-fiddle, as Benito Mussolini, installed in power in 1922, to many commentators figured are a fairly obvious point of comparison, least of all given Hitler's quite explicit attempt at emulation of the March on Rome with his own failed 'Beer Hall Putsch'. A few commentators of the time drew comparisons to the 19th century French populist Georges Boulanger, whose movement had almost lead to a coup in the late 1880s, and in the violence of Hitler's rhetoric, the ghost of another Frenchman, Maximilian Robespierre, was raised by some, a parallel with of The Terror with possible promises of the same befalling Germany.
As far as real people went though, one of the most popular, and enduring, of comparisons would be to Napoleon I (Napoleon III too, occasionally, especially in the early days of power where their paths seemed similar to some). This was especially popular with the British, and Churchill specifically but by no means exclusively. Framing the two as similar in their desires for domination and conquest, likewise Britain could be framed as the plucky little country that would be underestimated, and save Europe.
Other historical figures too were brought out. Attila the Hun and Genghis Khan for instance both figured as rough analogies for the images of fire and destruction that they brought to the popular imagination, and the same that Hitler was bringing to Europe, and Nero was used a few times in the wake of the Reichstag Fire, harkening back to the alleged fiddling while Rome burned.
Especially in the latter part of Hitler's reign, more apocalyptic language became common, and no more so than Satan himself, which had been something of the 'go-to' incarnate of evil before Hitler took his place in the popular consciousness (although that certainly also just says something about secularization of society). The Lord of Lies was joined by any number of other forms such as the Antichrist, but more erudite writers brought in comparisons such as Loki in the context of Ragnarok, and also less known ones like Sciron, a figure I had to look up, and apparently the demigod who Theseus killed, and "killed travelers by kicking them off a cliff".
This is far from exhaustive, to be sure. The biggest name, probably, should be Napoleon, although of course the comparison has flipped and now some instead call him the “the 18th century Hitler.” It isn't an entirely fair comparison of course, which breaks down in many points and thus requires focus on only specific threads, but of course, some worried too about that, with some writers warning that it was important not to let Hitler's memory be rehabilitated in the same way that of the first 'Little Corporal' had been. Nevertheless though it is, again, a lasting one that remains even today, although even the book Napoleon & Hitler: A Comparative Biography is quick to note that whatever the 'inescapable resemblances', "no one will dispute that Hitler was more evil than the Emperor, did evil on a far greater scale."
All in all, the point to be made is that many different figures were used, some briefly, others enduringly, some fairly and others not. The whole point of an analogy of course is that it isn't perfect, but rather allows an easy to understand comparison to be drawn, and that is what so many of these in the end served. As Rosenfeld notes in his conclusion, Hitler is Hitler, and it is hard to find a previous figure that is all encompassing and holds the same meaning in every sense. None of the figures listed here work perfectly because, to quote, "There was no single figure denoting evil in the same uncontested way that the former Führer does today." But the different figures, used in different ways, come together to demonstrate the ways in which people tried to grapple with his rise to power and his reign, and the analogies of the past - as well as the ethereal - that they drew on to compare it to.
I've only provided a small smattering of examples, and I would encourage anyone interested to check out Rosenfeld's paper as it is much more deep than my comparatively brief summation (also check out his AMA!), but I will be editing in an appendix as I go through the paper again and try to list all of the names that he makes mention of...
Rosenfeld, Gavriel D. 2018. “Who Was ‘Hitler’ Before Hitler? Historical Analogies and the Struggle to Understand Nazism, 1930–1945.” Central European History 51 (02): 249–81.
Seward, Desmond. *Napoleon & Hitler: A Comparative Biography. Thistle Publishing, 2013.
Appendix: Hitler was like...
The following is a list that I think includes every name Rosenfeld makes mention of (might have missed a few), but given the mountain of responses asking "what about...?" I need to strongly reiterate, it is not exhaustive, and a list that was would likely be impossible. I went through this afternoon and edited in a brief description of the reason(s) for the comparison - was it a matter of their conquests, their persecutions, their pure embodiment of evil or brutality...? - but can expand on anything in particular if asked of course.
It is also important to reiterate what was noted in the conclusion, namely that this list reflects the plurality of evil, and the lack of a single, clear, "Hitler before Hitler". Many different comparisons were made, and many seem almost laughable in hindsight, but they nevertheless reflect attempts to understand Hitler's rise, his reign, and his fall, through the lens of the past, and analogies to figures also known for the ills that the did.
ETA: A key to the appendix.
(/u/Georgy_K_Zhukov has provided a great answer to "Who was Hitler compared to." But as the literary and historical obscurity of many of the figures already shows, the larger question remains unanswered:
[W]ho was used as the standard of comparison for evil before Hitler?
I'd like to borrow from part of an earlier answer:
In western (Euro-American mainstream) culture, there is loads of imagery from the Bible--Babylon, Jezebel, serpents, the colors red and black. I want to focus, however, on two broader themes:
Monsters, especially from the Christian Bible
Jews (as seen by Christians)
Part I: Monsters
We live in an age where you can buy a cuddly Cthulhu--a cuddly pink Cthulhu--a cuddly Cthulhu with a children's book--so I think we tend to lose sight of the, well, monstrosity of creature-type monsters (as opposed to the human variety).
But monsters were the code that the authors of apocalyptic tracts used to portray enemies and oppressors:
Four great beasts, each different from the others, came up out of the sea.
...There before me was a fourth beast—terrifying and frightening and very powerful. It had large iron teeth; it crushed and devoured its victims and trampled underfoot whatever was left. It was different from all the former beasts, and it had ten horns.
While I was thinking about the horns, there before me was another horn, a little one, which came up among them; and three of the first horns were uprooted before it. This horn had eyes like the eyes of a human being and a mouth that spoke boastfully.
...The fourth beast is a fourth kingdom that will appear on earth. It will be different from all the other kingdoms and will devour the whole earth, trampling it down and crushing it.
In Revelation, John does give us four ordinary people on horses. But he picks up the beast theme of Daniel 7 to describe Rome, this time:
I saw a beast coming out of the sea. It had ten horns and seven heads, with ten crowns on its horns, and on each head a blasphemous name.
And more to the point for present purposes, the beast in Revelation doesn't just represent evil. It's also used to make otherwise-mundane imagery become evil:
There I saw a woman sitting on a scarlet beast that was covered with blasphemous names and had seven heads and ten horns. The woman was dressed in purple and scarlet, and was glittering with gold, precious stones and pearls.
(This is, of course, also a case of Babylon being used to highlight Rome as evil.)
Medieval iconography is also keen on monsters illustrating evil. We're more used to the Paradise Lost Satan and his heirs (looking at you, Lucifer). For medieval Christians, demons and the devil were monsters. The nuns at the Rupertsberg illuminated the Antichrist, for example--the Antichrist, who most legends would make out to be a human being, yeah? We're also got plenty of devilish monsters on hand.
But devil iconography brings me to the second topic I want to look at--one I am not happy about, at all.
Part 2: "The Jews"
Yes, the comparison here is to the 21st century use of Nazi imagery, so this doubly or triply sucks.
But it's another case of associating something with The Jews to mark it as bad.
To be clear, I don't mean Jewish people/people who happen to be Jewish. (No, they just get to suffer the consequences.) I mean "The Jews": the racist European-American Christian invention of a cabal that...well, whatever they're doing, it's evil.
First, iconography.
To the 12th century, illustrations of Jewish men generally denote them by hat (from Herrad von Hohenburg's Hortus deliciarum, which sadly means Garden of Delights instead of Garden of Delicious Things). But as ideas of a Jewish "race" started to coalesce, Christian artists evolved the stereotype of the "Jewish" nose.
By the late Middle Ages, Satan and demons are depicted with "Jewish" iconographical features. Yes, mixed in with monstrosity. Association with The Jews makes the devil appear more evil--not the other way around.
Early modern witch hysteria gives us another example. In point of fact, witchcraft is usually an accusation levelled against Christians. But that doesn't stop artists from adopting "Jewish" features to signal that a person is a witch.
Second, conspiracy.
20th century American conservatism (20-year-rule, people) has a very, very strong anti-internationalist streak that draws on anti-Semitic associations at nearly every turn. The slight scuzziness you probably sense around the edges (or not so edges) of the phrase "international banker," for example, doesn't go back to Banker being the profession that gives you the most money setting out in Oregon Trail II.
For paleoconservatives' long-running fear about the US losing national sovereignty (no, really), they adopted The Jews as a quick and dirty way to express just how evil the people threatening to take over were. (The association of Jews and banking also goes back to the Middle Ages).
And in the early 20th century, at least, you had Jewish bankers...and then also, you had--in the words of conservative evangelical and fundamentalist Christians--"Jewish Communists." Because "The Jews" were even used to make Communism seem more evil.
This didn't stop with World War II, either. Henry Ford might have distributed copies of Protocols of the Elders of Zion in the 1920s, but Mary Davison wrote Profound Revolution in 1960. And in the abominable Left Behind books, not only do they even turn their Rockefeller expy into a Jewish man, but they make him responsible not just for the new world order, but for their Antichrist.
...Oh, and on AskHistorians right now, there's this question:
I just had a heated debate with my family about the real reason why Germany started WWII. They argued that Germany wanted to get rid of the Rotchilds [Rothschilds].
~~
Obviously there's a lot more to be said about the history of anti-Semitism, and Christian fantasies of Jewish association with evil and the devil. I've tried to concentrate here on examples of Jewish stereotypes used to make other things seem more evil, rather than just negative stereotypes in and of themselves.
I'd love to hear from someone who can discuss non-Western views!)
