The Wannsee Conference on a cold 20th of January 1942 outside Berlin formalized what had begun years earlier (at least a million Jews already murdered) with carefully crafted language about civilian “resettlements” as a result of war.

Nazi officials drafted messaging about “temporary” measures, “work opportunities,” and “reconstruction” to dramatically expedite a gradual progression in order to formalize extremist “fringe” ideas into state policy through careful manipulation of bureaucratic processes.

Nazis plotted genocide of the Jews while sipping cognac…

The regime deliberately used euphemistic language and false promises to deceive people about their true intentions. They frequently described the deportations as “resettlement to the East” (Umsiedlung nach Osten) or “evacuation” (Evakuierung), presenting it as a temporary measure necessary during wartime devastation of homes.

Today, we’re watching a chillingly similar playbook, almost identical really, unfold with Trump’s proposals domestically and internationally. Arguably the extremist right-wing racists running the US government are using Gaza to trial death camp strategies they will then deploy at home.

The Nazi playbook starts with extreme statements followed by calculated rollback and moderation. Just as Nazi officials in the 1930s moved from direct antisemitic rhetoric to moderated euphemistic language about “population transfer” and “labor deployment,” we see Trump announcing permanent relocation of Gaza’s population, followed by officials walking it back to “temporary” measures and infrastructure focus.

The Nazis told their victims they were being sent to temporary camps or new settlements where they would be able to live and work better. They were often instructed to bring essential belongings and tools for their supposed new lives. At some camps, they even maintained the pretense by having deportees write postcards to their families with pre-written positive messages just before they were systematically murdered.

This deception was part of a broad system of bureaucratic and linguistic manipulation the Nazis developed to both mislead their victims and psychologically distance any perpetrators in order to greatly expand contributions to atrocities (falsely elevating themselves and those helping by framing mass deportations in terms of economic development).

Terms like “special treatment” (Sonderbehandlung) and “final solution” (Endlösung) were used as code words for mass murder. Nazi propaganda presented concentration camps to the public as humane “reeducation centers” where prisoners would learn discipline through work. The infamous “Arbeit macht frei” (“Work sets you free”) signs at camp entrances were part of this calculated deception.

That playbook isn’t just showing up again for Gaza. While Trump talks about turning Gaza into “the Riviera of the Middle East,” he’s also negotiating concentration camps in other foreign countries and expanding American detention infrastructure. Multiple populations are targeted simultaneously with the same deceptive language about temporary measures, efficiencies and economic benefits.

Goebbels understood that public acceptance required a dance of extreme proposals hitting as hard as possible followed by apparent moderation to create a ruse of concern while maintaining the core objective. In other words when Trump says he will shoot you in the street and you don’t object, you will be dead on the spot because you didn’t stop him then and there. But if you do object to being murdered, he will have others spin campaigns that you don’t get to judge him, and you will be relocated to a detention camp under a sign promising freedom.

The economic justification parallels between Gaza statements and Nazism are particularly striking. Hitler’s regime promised developments where Jews would find work and better conditions, just as Trump speaks of turning Gaza into “the Riviera of the Middle East.” The focus on reconstruction and development serves the same purpose now as it did then, to make population removal seem like it is beneficial to the very concerned Nazi rather than brutal to the victim. In both cases, economic promises mask inhumane explotative intentions.

The polls showing 70% of Israelis support population transfers echoes disturbing historical patterns of mob rule used to undermine basic humanitarian law. By 1938, German public opinion was carefully shaped by disgusting hate speech to accept increasingly extreme measures through similar tactical messaging meant to excuse genocide with popularity. Each step made the next seem more reasonable. What starts as support for “temporary relocation” for “reconstruction” is used to shift towards something far worse, once cracks in public resistance can be formed and expanded. Those reported 30% who stand opposed to Trump relocation tactics are 100% on the right side of history.

The strategic ambiguity used in today’s proposals are definitely cause for alarm as well. The lack of concrete plans, the use of contradictory statements to avoid accountability, are completely unacceptable and mirror the Nazi regime’s approach to testing boundaries while maintaining deniability. When Reinhard Heydrich floated the “evacuation to the East” at Wannsee, his broad statements and vagueness were very deliberate. Today’s officials similarly avoid specifics while floating trial balloons to gauge reaction and push towards plans of mass suffering.

Perhaps most disturbing is “negotiating tactic” framing of non-negotiable concepts. Just as Nazi officials hit people with extreme measures to make their lesser actions suddenly seem moderate, today’s observers suggest Trump’s population transfer proposals in drastic shock statements are staged as bargaining chips. This creates a false premise below actual norms and laws, where egregious human rights violations for “development” are marketed as acceptable compromises.

Majority support for killing a minority of the population doesn’t make such proposals any more acceptable, it actually invokes the lessons about someone ignorantly invoking violent mob rule, which makes it all far more dangerous. High polling support for population transfer should be seen as a warning sign of deteriorating safeguards against mass atrocities, not as legitimization of an immoral and historically backwards proposal.

The racist Nuremberg Laws didn’t stop being wrong by claiming popularity. The international laws against forced population transfers were created precisely because we’ve seen how majority support is faked, spun up, manufactured for mass atrocities through polluted messaging and gradual normalization of hate.

When a major power proposes displacing 1.8 million people while using historically familiar tactics of Nazi deception and normalization, we have a moral obligation to name it clearly.

Those calling for “moderate” discussion of such proposals should recall that moderation in the face of emerging atrocities is no virtue. Sometimes, protecting human rights requires speaking uncomfortable truths especially when 7 out of 10 would prefer not to hear the truth of the atrocities they would commit.

A group that played a key role in Donald Trump’s voter outreach to the Arab American community alongside his allies is rebranding itself after the president said that the U.S. would “take over” the Gaza Strip. Bishara Bahbah, chairman of the group formerly known as Arab Americans for Trump, said during a phone interview with The Associated Press on Wednesday that the group would now be called Arab Americans for Peace.

A bit late for these people to realize Trump hates them so much he intends to dehumanize and detain them far worse than Reagan or Nixon… but still better than never. However, the group really should have changed the name to Arab Americans against Trump, to truly admit making a grave error. Consider that the America First group ran propaganda to convince people it was for “peace”, which actually meant anti-semitic and pro-Hitler.

This is how to be far more clear in messaging:

“No Nazis, No Coup, No Fascist Shiba-Inu”

Or as they say in German schools…

History judges harshly those who saw the patterns but chose diplomatic silence, let alone facilitated them. We cannot claim ignorance of Nazism where these familiar steps can lead, whether at home or abroad.