What happens when Holocaust’s horror is reduced to a daily political insult?
In Latin America, some leftist leaders have adopted a dangerous custom: call “Nazi”, “neo -Nazi” or “Hitler” to anyone who contradicts their worldview. This has become a rhetorical strategy that banalizes the holocaust, distorts history and converts insult into state policy, regardless of the consequences that may have on those who are stigmatized, consequences that range from the digital matoneo, through acts of vandalism and reaching real risks fruit of threats.
Gustavo Petro has been one of the most prolific in this practice. In March 2022, he responded viscerally to a column published by RCN with a lapidary trill: “Neo Nazis in RCN.” The article, entitled “Petro wants to dock”, criticized his proposal to end pension funds. The reaction was not an argued refutation, but a direct stigmatization against the author and the medium. The response of the then presidential candidate was so grotesque, that the Foundation for Press Freedom (Flip) condemned the attack, warning that “seriously injure press freedom” and promotes self -censorship. Other important media and groups such as the SIP and voices of the South joined the sentence.
But Gustavo Petro didn’t stop there. From president he has called “Nazi” judges who fail against him, to digital activists who criticize him, businessmen who defend private property, already important means such as the Colombian, whom he accused of “defending Hitler.” In March 2025, he intensified this, using the term more than 10 times in 24 hours against opponents and judges. In its logic, there are “Nazis Nazis and Nazis attitudes”, as if the term could stretch to the taste of the speaker.
This rhetoric extends to its surroundings. Vice Chancellor Mauricio Jaramillo Jassir has compared Israeli actions with Nazism, such as Gaza’s invasion with Poland in 1939, invoking the ‘lebensraum’ Hitlerian in publications of 2025. Although criticizes a real conflict, recurrent use makes it a weapon against dissidents. Also some leftist congressmen, such as Iván Cepeda, have shared material on social networks making these comparisons.
This pattern is not exclusive to Colombia. The late Hugo Chávez compared George W. Bush with Hitler in multiple speeches (as in the UN in 2006); Nicolás Maduro called the Argentine president Javier Milei; Rafael Correa responded with a “Heil Hitler!” ironic to his critics on social networks; Daniel Ortega has accused the United States, Israel and the European Union to act as Nazis. Evo Morales also and even Fidel Castro have been linked to this rhetoric, directly or indirectly. Even in Mexico there was a case in which Andrés Manuel López Obrador described the journalist Carlos Alazraki of having a “Hitler” thought for his criticisms of the government. Rhetoric is repeated: Nazism is no longer a historical warning, but a label for the adversary.
The pattern is clear: when the uncomfortable press is “Nazi”; When entrepreneurs claim guarantees, they are “neo -Nazis”; When the judges fail against, they act “like Hitler.” This logic turns Nazism into a generic insult, stripping it of its historical and ethical weight. It is no longer about denouncing anti -Semitism or totalitarianism, but also using the memory of the Holocaust as a political weapon.
This banalization offends the victims of Nazism and the Jewish community in general, as the Anti -Diffamación League has repeatedly denounced in Latin America. In addition, polarize divided societies, promoting threats and self -censorship, as experts in the country warn: ‘When everything is Nazi, nothing is.’
The left that is progressive has a historical responsibility: preserve memory, not manipulate it. Using Nazism as an insult is betraying that memory. And doing so from power, with official microphone, is to turn history into an intimidation tool.
As the Holocaust survivors disappear, so do their first -hand stories. This has generated a worrying lack of awareness among young Latin Americans, as Kenneth Jacobson warns in Infobae.
The absence of rigorous historical education allows Nazism to become a rhetorical wild card, devoid of context. Surveys show that many young people ignore holocaust details, allowing their use as an emotional load resource, but without historical substance.
Democracy demands debate, does not labels. And memory demands respect, not distortion. The banalization of the Holocaust and the Nazi regime not only trivializes the suffering of millions, but also converts the term into a polarization tool.
