How Putin is following Hitler's playbook

These notes were put together by researchers for The Glenn Beck Program. 

Watch the full episode of The Root on demand on TheBlaze TV. Get all the details HERE.

In 2014 the map as we knew it changed.

Two conflicts played out within 4 months of each other. On February 27th Russia began a special operations ground invasion of Crimea. Annexing it fully just two weeks later. Russia’s ground invasion of Eastern Ukraine would follow soon after. On June 28th ISIS head Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi declared himself Caliph Ibrahim of the Islamic State Caliphate. The border between Iraq and Syria would be dissolved. As it was in Europe, just across the Black Sea, the map was suddenly unstable.

Both conflicts have the capability to bring the entire world into conflict. The likes of which we haven’t seen since the 1930’s. In fact, the similarities between Nazi National Socialism and what’s currently taking place in Eastern Europe and the Middle East is striking. Ethnic fascism in Russia and Islamic Fascism in the Middle East. Why can’t the world properly identify what we’re seeing now? Has fear of what’s staring us directly in the face forced us to seek appeasement with men like Putin, Baghdadi and Khamenei?

For Europe, the return of ethnic fascism to Russia is all the more tragic. A continent that lost millions of lives in world war to expel this evil ideology and halt it’s greedy desire to expand its territory is now watching with bated breath to see what Putin does next. What’s going on currently in Russia and Ukraine is eerily similar to 1938. The result back then ultimately would be World War 2.

On March 12, 1938 Nazi Germany in direct defiance of the Versailles Treaty annexed Austria. For the first time since 1919 the map of Europe had been unlocked. The world collectively held their breath wondering what would happen next.

Just two weeks after the Austrian Anschluss Hitler called a secret meeting with Konrad Henlein, the head of the pro-Nazi party SdP (Sudeten German Party) in Czechoslovakia. The message was clear. Leverage the large number of ethnic Germans in western Czechoslovakia and accuse the Czechoslovakian government of oppression against them.

"I am asking neither that Germany be allowed to oppress three and a half million Frenchmen, nor am I asking that three and a half million Englishmen be placed at our mercy. Rather I am simply demanding that the oppression of three and a half million Germans in Czechoslovakia cease and that the inalienable right to self-determination take its place." - Adolf Hitler's speech at the NSDAP Congress 1938

Hitler ordered Henlein to make demands from the government so large that they’d never agree to them. When they didn’t, the Sudeten Germans were to revolt.

It was a clear act of aggression that threatened to unlock the European map even further. The world knew exactly what Hitler wanted. He wanted not only Western Sudeten Czechoslovakia….he wanted the entire country. If this occurred Poland would soon be vulnerable to Germany not only from the West but also from the South.

Czechoslovakian President Edvard Benes was in an impossible situation. He had a modern and capable army, but alone against Germany he had no chance. Also, the Sudeten part of the country contained the majority of Czechoslovakian industry. It was the backbone of their economy. If the Sudetenland was amalgamated by Germany their economy would collapse.

Hitler raised tensions further by ordering 750,000 German troops to the border as an “army exercise”. He called Czechoslovakia a fraudulent state, and that it was in violation of international law by denying the Germans in the Sudeten the right to self-determination. Benes in desperation pleaded with England and France to offer their support should Germany decide to follow this all the way through.

The story is well known. British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain flew to Germany desperately seeking “Peace for our time”. Chamberlain’s appeasement of Hitler would go down in history as a foreign policy that enabled a homicidal mad man. What’s not as well known is the depth of Chamberlains denial in the face of Nazi fascism. This story has a much deeper back end. Most think that Chamberlain was justified in his actions because he didn’t know just how crazy Hitler was. Is that accurate?

The Oster Conspiracy

SOURCE: The Oster Conspiracy of 1938: The Unknown Story of the Military Plot to Kill Hitler and Avert World War II

Lieutenant Colonel Hans Oster of the German Office of Military Intelligence had watched Hitler’s rise from inside since the beginning. To those outside Germany Hitler’s propaganda seemed hard to believe. Like Islamic terrorists today. When Osama Bin Laden threatened to attack New York City no one gave it much credit. Intense racial hatred and the idea of a mass global Jewish conspiracy doesn’t sound rational to most of us. Hans Oster however knew exactly what Hitler was capable of. He had listened to his speeches and witnessed him back them up first hand.

In what would later be called the Oster Conspiracy, he began to gather like minded individuals from all over the German military. He made additional contacts in the foreign office, the Secretary of State, and many others. The idea was to have a plan in place to depose Hitler and reinstate the monarchy of Kaiser Wilhelm II that was in exile in the Netherlands.

In March 1938 Oster’s plans accelerated. The Austrian anschluss and the Sudeten crisis in Czechoslovakia made it obvious what Hitler wanted to do. Oster activated a contact of his in the foreign office, Theodor Kordt, who was currently stationed in London with the German Ambassador. Kordt called a secret meeting with Foreign Secretary Lord Halifax to inform the British what Hitler was up to and to let them know that a plan was in place to depose him.

September 1938...Oster’s plan is in motion. Winston Churchill predicted that after Oster’s coup a new system of government could be in place within 48 hours. The English appeared to be on board. That meant the French would fall in line as well. Oster’s troops were stationed in buildings at strategic points all over Berlin waiting for the go order. They were ready.

On September 29th Chamberlain gave in to Hitler. They decided to hand the Nazis the Sudetenland without even consulting Czechoslovakia. Britain and France told Benes that if they didn’t respect the Munich Agreement they would have to resist Germany on their own. With no other option he capitulated.

The German army would fully occupy the Sudetenland in October. The map was unlocked. This set off a tidal wave of border disputes. Poland invaded and annexed portions of Czechoslovakia it lost in 1919. Hungary annexed Carpathian Ruthenia in Slovakia. Germany eventually rolls completely through Czechoslovakia occupying it entirely. Less than a year later the entire European map would unravel.

Europe was so terrified of another war that they were willing to appease and ultimately enable a mad man. Churchill made this statement after the Munich Agreement was signed:

“And do not suppose that this is the end. This is only the beginning of the reckoning. This is only the first sip, the first foretaste of a bitter cup which will be proffered to us year by year unless by a supreme recovery of moral health and martial vigour, we arise again and take our stand for freedom as in the olden time.”

It makes it all the worse that the British knew full well of the Oster Conspiracy and what Hitler was actually up to. Fear and a lack of courage to call Hitler the evil fascist that he was ultimately caused that fear to become reality. As Churchill accurately predicted, it was “only the beginning of the reckoning”.

Compare March 1938 to March 2014. The situation is almost an exact match. Like Hitler’s March 12 1938 anschluss of Austria, Putin’s “anschluss” of Crimea would take place less than a week apart on March 18. Motivated by ideals of spreading Russian racial and cultural superiority and liberating their Orthodox holy land Putin’s “little green men” swiftly took over the peninsula.

Not long after the annexation of Crimea ethnic Russians in Eastern Ukraine began to arm themselves and riot. Vladimir Putin claimed he would act in the interest of ethnic Russians in Ukraine and sent thousands of troops to the border as an “army exercise”. He then began publically funneling non-lethal aid into the country without Ukrainian approval. Covertly he also began funneling in troops and sophisticated weapons.

Eastern Ukraine, like the Sudetenland in Czechoslovakia, is also the main industrial hub in Ukraine. The economic backbone of the country. If Eastern Ukraine falls to the Russians the Ukrainian economy faces collapse.

Sound familiar? This fascist playbook has been used before.

Just like it had been done in 1938, the map was being unlocked. The border areas in Eastern Ukraine became unstable. Other border areas in Moldova and Georgia began to wonder if they were next on Putin’s list. Are they? On March 5, 2015 Russia deployed thousands of troops to the breakaway regions of Abkhazia and Moldova in Georgia. The reasoning? An “army exercise”. Will Russia completely roll through Ukraine just like Hitler eventually did to Czechoslovakia? That could eventually be the trigger that unlocks the European map once more leading to full on world war.

As if expecting this to actually happen Putin has been reaching out to radical groups on both the left and right all over Europe. Anyone that is against the EU/US alliance structure has become a potential ally. Examples are Russian support for right winger Marine Le Pen and her National Front party in France. On the opposite end of the political spectrum is Russian support for the far left wing Syriza government in Greece and the Podemos Party in Spain. All three have already declared support for Putin’s Russia.

As the economic crisis in the European Union continues more of it’s members are becoming impatient with Germany. Germany on the other hand is getting impatient with certain members of the EU. As the economies in Italy, Greece and Spain continue to decline Germany, as the EU’s economic powerhouse, has had to write the majority of the bailout checks. It’s unsustainable and it won’t last. The European alliance structure could be on the verge of falling apart.

The timing of the splintering of the European Union and Russia’s military moves in Eastern Europe is significant. The former enables the latter. The more Western Europe weakens the more Russia will push. With the European Union effectively hamstrung the United States becomes the only nation economically and militarily capable of leading a defense. Will we respond and risk escalating the conflict?

The answer appears to be yes...

This month the U.S. Army announced it’s own “exercise”. Operation Atlantic Resolve, which launched last April after the Crimea annexation, is now being extended and expanded. U.S. troops have landed in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland. The expansion will land additional U.S. troops in Romania, Hungary, Bulgaria, and possibly Georgia. The decision has also been made to land U.S. troops in Ukraine. On March 5th the 173rd Airborne Brigade deployed 1 battalion to L’viv in Western Ukraine. From there they’ll train the Ukrainians to better fight the Russians.

The countries the U.S. has deployed in is very telling to what’s going on. It’s a line in the sand. NATO on one side and Russia on the other. Colonel Michael Foster of the 173rd said this regarding U.S. troop deployments:

"So by the end of the summer, you could very well see an operation that stretches from the Baltics all the way down to the Black Sea. As you connect countries, there is almost a line of US troops."

Almost completely under the radar NATO has drawn a red line down Eastern Europe from the Baltic Sea to the Black Sea. Directly in the face of Russia.

While Europe degrades in the shadow of Russian fascism hell bent on the pursuit of an ethnic empire, another conflict is evolving across the Black Sea.

...Islamic fascism

'Rage against the dying of the light': Charlie Kirk lived that mandate

PHILL MAGAKOE / Contributor | Getty Images

Kirk’s tragic death challenges us to rise above fear and anger, to rebuild bridges where others build walls, and to fight for the America he believed in.

I’ve only felt this weight once before. It was 2001, just as my radio show was about to begin. The World Trade Center fell, and I was called to speak immediately. I spent the day and night by my bedside, praying for words that could meet the moment.

Yesterday, I found myself in the same position. September 11, 2025. The assassination of Charlie Kirk. A friend. A warrior for truth.

Out of this tragedy, the tyrant dies, but the martyr’s influence begins.

Moments like this make words feel inadequate. Yet sometimes, words from another time speak directly to our own. In 1947, Dylan Thomas, watching his father slip toward death, penned lines that now resonate far beyond his own grief:

Do not go gentle into that good night. / Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Thomas was pleading for his father to resist the impending darkness of death. But those words have become a mandate for all of us: Do not surrender. Do not bow to shadows. Even when the battle feels unwinnable.

Charlie Kirk lived that mandate. He knew the cost of speaking unpopular truths. He knew the fury of those who sought to silence him. And yet he pressed on. In his life, he embodied a defiance rooted not in anger, but in principle.

Picking up his torch

Washington, Jefferson, Adams — our history was started by men who raged against an empire, knowing the gallows might await. Lincoln raged against slavery. Martin Luther King Jr. raged against segregation. Every generation faces a call to resist surrender.

It is our turn. Charlie’s violent death feels like a knockout punch. Yet if his life meant anything, it means this: Silence in the face of darkness is not an option.

He did not go gently. He spoke. He challenged. He stood. And now, the mantle falls to us. To me. To you. To every American.

We cannot drift into the shadows. We cannot sit quietly while freedom fades. This is our moment to rage — not with hatred, not with vengeance, but with courage. Rage against lies, against apathy, against the despair that tells us to do nothing. Because there is always something you can do.

Even small acts — defiance, faith, kindness — are light in the darkness. Reaching out to those who mourn. Speaking truth in a world drowning in deceit. These are the flames that hold back the night. Charlie carried that torch. He laid it down yesterday. It is ours to pick up.

The light may dim, but it always does before dawn. Commit today: I will not sleep as freedom fades. I will not retreat as darkness encroaches. I will not be silent as evil forces claim dominion. I have no king but Christ. And I know whom I serve, as did Charlie.

Two turning points, decades apart

On Wednesday, the world changed again. Two tragedies, separated by decades, bound by the same question: Who are we? Is this worth saving? What kind of people will we choose to be?

Imagine a world where more of us choose to be peacemakers. Not passive, not silent, but builders of bridges where others erect walls. Respect and listening transform even the bitterest of foes. Charlie Kirk embodied this principle.

He did not strike the weak; he challenged the powerful. He reached across divides of politics, culture, and faith. He changed hearts. He sparked healing. And healing is what our nation needs.

At the center of all this is one truth: Every person is a child of God, deserving of dignity. Change will not happen in Washington or on social media. It begins at home, where loneliness and isolation threaten our souls. Family is the antidote. Imperfect, yes — but still the strongest source of stability and meaning.

Mark Wilson / Staff | Getty Images

Forgiveness, fidelity, faithfulness, and honor are not dusty words. They are the foundation of civilization. Strong families produce strong citizens. And today, Charlie’s family mourns. They must become our family too. We must stand as guardians of his legacy, shining examples of the courage he lived by.

A time for courage

I knew Charlie. I know how he would want us to respond: Multiply his courage. Out of this tragedy, the tyrant dies, but the martyr’s influence begins. Out of darkness, great and glorious things will sprout — but we must be worthy of them.

Charlie Kirk lived defiantly. He stood in truth. He changed the world. And now, his torch is in our hands. Rage, not in violence, but in unwavering pursuit of truth and goodness. Rage against the dying of the light.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Glenn Beck is once again calling on his loyal listeners and viewers to come together and channel the same unity and purpose that defined the historic 9-12 Project. That movement, born in the wake of national challenges, brought millions together to revive core values of faith, hope, and charity.

Glenn created the original 9-12 Project in early 2009 to bring Americans back to where they were in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. In those moments, we weren't Democrats and Republicans, conservative or liberal, Red States or Blue States, we were united as one, as America. The original 9-12 Project aimed to root America back in the founding principles of this country that united us during those darkest of days.

This new initiative draws directly from that legacy, focusing on supporting the family of Charlie Kirk in these dark days following his tragic murder.

The revival of the 9-12 Project aims to secure the long-term well-being of Charlie Kirk's wife and children. All donations will go straight to meeting their immediate and future needs. If the family deems the funds surplus to their requirements, Charlie's wife has the option to redirect them toward the vital work of Turning Point USA.

This campaign is more than just financial support—it's a profound gesture of appreciation for Kirk's tireless dedication to the cause of liberty. It embodies the unbreakable bond of our community, proving that when we stand united, we can make a real difference.
Glenn Beck invites you to join this effort. Show your solidarity by donating today and honoring Charlie Kirk and his family in this meaningful way.

You can learn more about the 9-12 Project and donate HERE

The dangerous lie: Rights as government privileges, not God-given

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

When politicians claim that rights flow from the state, they pave the way for tyranny.

Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) recently delivered a lecture that should alarm every American. During a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, he argued that believing rights come from a Creator rather than government is the same belief held by Iran’s theocratic regime.

Kaine claimed that the principles underpinning Iran’s dictatorship — the same regime that persecutes Sunnis, Jews, Christians, and other minorities — are also the principles enshrined in our Declaration of Independence.

In America, rights belong to the individual. In Iran, rights serve the state.

That claim exposes either a profound misunderstanding or a reckless indifference to America’s founding. Rights do not come from government. They never did. They come from the Creator, as the Declaration of Independence proclaims without qualification. Jefferson didn’t hedge. Rights are unalienable — built into every human being.

This foundation stands worlds apart from Iran. Its leaders invoke God but grant rights only through clerical interpretation. Freedom of speech, property, religion, and even life itself depend on obedience to the ruling clerics. Step outside their dictates, and those so-called rights vanish.

This is not a trivial difference. It is the essence of liberty versus tyranny. In America, rights belong to the individual. The government’s role is to secure them, not define them. In Iran, rights serve the state. They empower rulers, not the people.

From Muhammad to Marx

The same confusion applies to Marxist regimes. The Soviet Union’s constitutions promised citizens rights — work, health care, education, freedom of speech — but always with fine print. If you spoke out against the party, those rights evaporated. If you practiced religion openly, you were charged with treason. Property and voting were allowed as long as they were filtered and controlled by the state — and could be revoked at any moment. Rights were conditional, granted through obedience.

Kaine seems to be advocating a similar approach — whether consciously or not. By claiming that natural rights are somehow comparable to sharia law, he ignores the critical distinction between inherent rights and conditional privileges. He dismisses the very principle that made America a beacon of freedom.

Jefferson and the founders understood this clearly. “We are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights,” they wrote. No government, no cleric, no king can revoke them. They exist by virtue of humanity itself. The government exists to protect them, not ration them.

This is not a theological quibble. It is the entire basis of our government. Confuse the source of rights, and tyranny hides behind piety or ideology. The people are disempowered. Clerics, bureaucrats, or politicians become arbiters of what rights citizens may enjoy.

John Greim / Contributor | Getty Images

Gifts from God, not the state

Kaine’s statement reflects either a profound ignorance of this principle or an ideological bias that favors state power over individual liberty. Either way, Americans must recognize the danger. Understanding the origin of rights is not academic — it is the difference between freedom and submission, between the American experiment and theocratic or totalitarian rule.

Rights are not gifts from the state. They are gifts from God, secured by reason, protected by law, and defended by the people. Every American must understand this. Because when rights come from government instead of the Creator, freedom disappears.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

POLL: Is America’s next generation trading freedom for equity?

NurPhoto / Contributor | Getty Images

A recent poll conducted by Justin Haskins, a long-time friend of the show, has uncovered alarming trends among young Americans aged 18-39, revealing a generation grappling with deep frustrations over economic hardships, housing affordability, and a perceived rigged system that favors the wealthy, corporations, and older generations. While nearly half of these likely voters approve of President Trump, seeing him as an anti-establishment figure, over 70% support nationalizing major industries, such as healthcare, energy, and big tech, to promote "equity." Shockingly, 53% want a democratic socialist to win the 2028 presidential election, including a third of Trump voters and conservatives in this age group. Many cite skyrocketing housing costs, unfair taxation on the middle class, and a sense of being "stuck" or in crisis as driving forces, with 62% believing the economy is tilted against them and 55% backing laws to confiscate "excess wealth" like second homes or luxury items to help first-time buyers.

This blend of Trump support and socialist leanings suggests a volatile mix: admiration for disruptors who challenge the status quo, coupled with a desire for radical redistribution to address personal struggles. Yet, it raises profound questions about the roots of this discontent—Is it a failure of education on history's lessons about socialism's failures? Media indoctrination? Or genuine systemic barriers? And what does it portend for the nation’s trajectory—greater division, a shift toward authoritarian policies, or an opportunity for renewal through timeless values like hard work and individual responsibility?

Glenn wants to know what YOU think: Where do Gen Z's socialist sympathies come from? What does it mean for the future of America? Make your voice heard in the poll below:

Do you believe the Gen Z support for socialism comes from perceived economic frustrations like unaffordable housing and a rigged system favoring the wealthy and corporations?

Do you believe the Gen Z support for socialism, including many Trump supporters, is due to a lack of education about the historical failures of socialist systems?

Do you think that these poll results indicate a growing generational divide that could lead to more political instability and authoritarian tendencies in America's future?

Do you think that this poll implies that America's long-term stability relies on older generations teaching Gen Z and younger to prioritize self-reliance, free-market ideals, and personal accountability?

Do you think the Gen Z support for Trump is an opportunity for conservatives to win them over with anti-establishment reforms that preserve liberty?