Yes, it's problematic to use such terms because their use evokes knee-jerk opposition to the position of the author.
The author should have used WW1, not WW2, to support Stratfor's point.
Serbian immigration in WW1 was a hotbutton issue, and you can use that example to make the same point as required for the above analysis without resorting to using Hitler and WW2.
Yes, Germany is uttering nationalistic noises again. Yes, it is looking for groups to demonize (in WW1: Serbs, in WW2, Jews, today "immigrants"), and yes, Germany is interfering in Bosnia (with the new EU peacekeeping force), Iraq (politically only, one presumes), and in the Ukraine.
Yes, striking parallels should be drawn, but they are better drawn by using WW1 terms rather than the off-limits words of WW2.
Clearly Germany is making a European powerplay. It's no accident that Germany supported the NATO war on Serbia in 1999 (reminiscent of Austria's 1914 invasion of Serbia). It's no accident that Germany is demonizing "immigrants" today. It's no accident that Germany is using Iraq and Bosnia to minimize NATO while simultaneously building the new EU-only military (that leaves both Russia and the U.S. out), and it's certainly no accident that Germany's fingerprints are all over the recent Ukrainian election (perhaps even Stratfor will figure out the obvious by the 4th of their 4 part analysis, of which this is part 1, I presume).
All of the above are part of a trend, not random accidents or coincidences. That's what needs to be said, not that the CDU (which has good, decent, pro-Jew, pro-American people running it) are somehow Hitler-esque. Such phrases diminish the analysis and the underlying points that need to be made.
That being said, it's one of Stratfor's better works. Stratfor has fallen from mighty heights since its 1998 peak. It was completely in the tank for the 1999 Balkan war, and it never recovered...though this piece is a step in the right direction.