Findings
All four cases have case-level support ratings and historical-alignment notes. Cross-case findings remain provisional until full-corpus review, reliability adjudication, and publication-grade citation work are complete.
Current answer
The draft comparison finds the strongest support for the Law of Sacrifice in the Hitler case and moderate support in the American Revolution, Lincoln, and Napoleon cases. The shared pattern is not a claim of equivalence: metaphor form, political endpoint, enemy construction, institutional setting, and historical enactment differ substantially across the four cases.
Read the findings
- Case comparison — support ratings, endpoints, and claim boundaries.
- Law of Sacrifice findings — current case-level scores.
- Shared metaphor systems — provisional cross-case mappings.
- War and genocide distinction — moral and historical guardrails.
- Rival explanations — competing interpretations and unresolved questions.
- Validation summary — readiness and evidentiary limits.
Compare responsibly
Structural comparison is not moral equivalence. War, genocide, enslavement, colonial violence, and state terror require separate historical and moral description even when symbolic structures overlap. Readers can inspect the comparative protocol or audit package behind these claims.