Hegel’s dialectic is a method of knowledge, a process, a self-motion of thinking and reality, the tread of the spirit (Geist) to its self-knowledge.
Philosophically said, the Marxistic communism, which is based on Hegel’s dialectic, says that the capitalism is the thesis, the dictatorship of the proletariat is the antithesis, and classless equality and equal happiness for all is the synthesis. But if is right that history is class struggle (war), then it is not - or at least only without history - possible to get a classless equality and equal happiness for all. Okay, Hegel already claimed the end of history, also Marx who was a Left-Hegelian, and many others (mostly Hegelians, some Nietzscheans, some others). So, as long as there is history there is no classless equality and equal happiness for all, so that the classes, the inequality, thus the class struggle (war) remain.
Now, because there is not less but more war (=> history), the conclusion must be either (a) the trial to finish history or (b) the search for other solutions. Ending history is theoretically possible. Maybe the machines, the genetic engineering, and the cyborgization will lead us to the capability of ending history practically in the future. At the moment there is more war than ever before.
By the way: One can try to apply the dialectic process to Hegel’s dialectic itself. If we say that Hegel’s dialectic is anti-analytic and the analytic philosophy anti-dialectic, then there are thesis and antithesis in two ways, but we do not really know which one of them starts at first as thesis. Starting at first is an advantage. So which one is the one with that advantage? If we will never know this, then we will have to state that both remain just opposites, because it would be unfair to say this or that one starts at first. But, in that case, it is also problematic to say what the synthesis is. The first one (thesis) with the advantage will always say that the second one (antithesis) is somehow "false“ or "evil“, so that the first one will always make a major contribution to the synthesis.
War requires weapons. Either they are part of the body, or they need to be made resp. bought from someone else. So war is a business too. This means that war becomes more and more lucrative and that nobody of the big war business has an interest in giving it up.
Especially in modern times the contradiction between the war business of a very few people and the wish of living in peace and harmony of the most people is very obvious. So the rhetorical lies are on top, since the few people of the war business are powerful, whereas the most people are powerless.
One of the most interesting questions is: What was first: war and disharmony or peace and harmony?
My point is that it is not theoretically decidable who is on first, because, apparently, that decision is given by history (resp. evolution) itself, and that means by powerful people (resp. nature).
Dialectic processes are not nonsense, because they really happen. So they are, philosophically said, ontological, thus not only logical.
Neither came first. There was no first.
Is there a difference between Hegel’s “dialectic” and “compromise”?
There is no first , but there is prior, a-Priori, Which signifies the source of thought as deriving from deduction or observation.
Even if observation precedes a deduction, there no method to determine in the sense of temporal succession.
However, the connotative derivation obfuscates this distinction.
Compromise, yes, and the result of war or of struggle can also be interpreted as compromise.
But it would still be interesting to know the first one …, if there was one.
I believe to understand philosophers like Kant, Hegel, and their likes one would need to read their core texts at least 50 times and spent at least one year full time on each of the main text. I have done that with Kant but not Hegel (read twice {long time ago} his The Phenomenology of Spirit). So I not fully familiar with Hegel but nevertheless my views are;
I would wonder as well how can an event-in-time exist without time and space. Perhaps you could provide the reference from Hegel. It is likely there is more to it than such a contradictory presentation.
One possibility is the transcendence of time, note points below.
It is not a regresssion but a dynamic complementarity spiralling into infinity.
It is a shift in perspective.
Thesis: A piece of diamond is hard [not penetrable].
Anti-thesis: A piece of diamond is soft [penetrable with an electron knife]
Synthesis: A piece of diamond is both hard and soft.
A “higher” or “richer” perspective is when one is able to toggle spirally to and from between thesis and anti-thesis as reality.
The danger is the conflation of the thesis and anti-thesis within one perspective only or within one sense only.
The point is to view
A = A
A = not-A
from a helicopter view to understand their different perspectives and conditions.
Note ‘Form is emptiness, emptiness is Form’ - Heart Sutra
answers.yahoo.com/question/inde … 018AAdDOI0
or
Everything is nothingness, nothingness is everything.
But most humans always place something (e.g. “Big Bang”) or someone (e.g. God) at the beginning. So according to most humans this placed one came first. Let us take the following example for a dialectic process in a religious and theological sense: (1) the thesis God came first, (2) the antithesis Devil was the second one who came, (3) the synthesis Man came as the thrid one. If we exchange the first one (thesis God) and and the second one (antithesis Devil) for each other, then we will pretty soon notice that the third one (synthesis Man) would have other properties than in the first example.
So we better should assume that there was neither a first one nor a second one, but both existed already at that time which we want to be the first time or the beginning of time?!?. They were, are, and will be in conflict with each other. And it is up to the third one - the synthesis - (as “the smiling third”? 
) to make the best of it, e.g. to gain from the polemic, the struggle, the war of the first and the second one?!?. Good for the human rulers … 
Yes, and this is why , at times, 'most humans’are ignorant of what really is going on, and bemone the fact, that in the end it is they who have to pay the price. Am sticking to the script in the terms of philosophical discourse, and the price need not contain minimally, anything other then merely ‘logical inconsistency’
For those who aspire higher, numbers are not challenging, because that is all they are, another form of representation: accounting. Accounting is many things besides the numerical quantifying of facts, it is also inserting reasons, (oh, much too fast)
to give credence, usually resulting in a very sloppy compromising situation, not at all what ‘they’ expected.
But I know this is tangential and perhaps an unsatisfactory answer.
If you have made the Hegel’s dialectic your own and are powerful enough, then you can do with the less powerful people whatever you want. You just play the historical game called “dialectic process” by using them like chess-men.
Another possibility is to give the advantage to the second one, the antithesis, for example to the dictatorship of the proletariat - as we know not only from history. Principally, everyone and not only egalitarianists like the communists, can “argue” in this way.
In this example, the (advocates of the) unproductives ones “argue” as if they were the (advocates of the) productive ones, and the (advocates of the) real poroductive ones argue in the same way: They are exploited. But only the productive ones are right, because they (and only they!) pay taxes, and, moreover, the unproductive ones are paid by this taxes. The taxpayers (and only the taxpayers) are exploited by those who do not pay taxes, and this are not only poor people but also very rich people.
No wonder the vocal school of the Viennese Circle was overcome by the British Positivists to settle this for once and for all.
The Wiener Kreis (Vienese Circle) and the Berliner Kreis (Berlinese Circle, a.k.a. Berliner Gesellschaft für empirische Philosophie) founded the Neupositivismus (Neopositivism).
Granted, but stille there are differences, among even the basics of Lord Russell and Wittgenstein.
The suicide of a key member of the Viennese Circle, finished that off, leaving a lot of indefinite questions.
The founder of the modern mathematical logic (=> logistic, symbolic logic …) was Gottlob Frege (1848-1925), the spiritual father of Bertrand Russel (1872-1970) and of Ludwig Wittgenstein (1889-1951).