This is wildly inaccurate. The Hitler youth was a fully voluntary group -- in fact, at times exclusionary even among favored in-groups. It was more like what would happen if you combined elite prep schooling, the youth wing ("Young _s") of a fringe political party, and scouting into a single organization. This didn't change until 1936, and even then, the upper ranks of the group were dominated by the description above.
Having an arm of the state that focuses on installing values in children can allow bad things to happen. Families can install bad values in children but the distributed nature of families mean the system is a little more stable, as you're less likely to see the same bad values installed en masse. However, this does happen as problem cultures arise in populations. We see this particularly in urban gangs. But even in this instance the concentration of power is reduced.
The Hitler Youth makes, if anything, the exact opposite point. What the Hitler youth demonstrates is that a movement that focuses on installing their values in children can use radicalized youth as a powerful component in their push toward fascist revolution. This is why the German response to the Hitler Youth was to criminalize the organization, not to dismantle child welfare laws.
The entire discussion is a red herring because "installing values in children" is not the goal of child welfare agencies.
If you go to my original comment I said "when the state starts to take over the role of parents they gain a scary amount of influence of the next generation". This is one of the many downsides of state welfare having to go in. I'm not denying the need. It's just one of the many problems involved.
> What the Hitler youth demonstrates is that a movement that focuses on installing their values in children can use radicalized youth as a powerful component in their push toward fascist revolution
This is exactly my point.
> This is exactly my point.
Child protection agencies are not a movement.
I agree.
To wit: by the time that CPS agencies are co-opted, the revolution has already happened (and then some).
My father worked in this field for years. It was a mess. Once public case would occur with a child dying at the hands of an abusive parent. So policy would change. Then there would be a high profile case where they got it wrong and took a child off of a good family. So policy would change again. Every time the blame would fall on the social workers. It nearly broke my dad when he was managing a district branch.
I have no solutions as I want children to be safe at home but it sucks from every angle.