Credible? I'm not so sure. He was successful, but that's not the same as credible. It's hard to know if he would have been believed if he used the same rhetoric today.I'm not sure it's that simple: Hitler's rhetoric - going back to Mein Kampf - was always about blaming other races for Germany's fall from power. He linked this into underlying racism in the culture (most obviously, but not limited to, anti-Semitism) to establish scape-goats for Germany's fall from power. The resolution to return Germany to power was to return the country to the control of the pure Aryan race - he tried a number of solutions to this before arriving at the final one. In his writing and oratory, his very conception of a great Germany was a racially pure Aryan Germany.
This is very similar to the BNP blaming Britain's fall from power on immigration diluting the British culture and promotes the return to a racially pure anglo-saxon culture as the essential element of recreating Great Britain.
Either neither is racist or they both are.
He certainly lacks Hitler's charisma, political competence and oratory skill. This makes him a small-time racist nuisance, rather than a dangerous leader. And, yes, I'm very thankful for that.
Given the direct relevance of Hitler's policies in Germany to the BNP's policies, I would suspect that quoting Godwin's law in this context would be a sure sign of losing the argument.
Bookmarks