Reductio ad Hitlerum

Reductio ad Hitlerum, also argumentum ad Hitlerum, (Latin for "reduction to" and "argument to" and dog Latin for "Hitler" respectively) is an ad hominem or ad misericordiam argument whereby an opponent's view is compared to a view that would be held by Adolf Hitler or the Nazi Party. It is a fallacy of irrelevance, in which a conclusion is suggested based solely on something's or someone's origin rather than its current meaning. The suggested logic is one of guilt by association.

Its name is a variation on reductio ad absurdum, and was coined by political philosopher Leo Strauss, in 1951 in an article of "Measure: a critical journal"^[1]. Engaging in this fallacy is sometimes known as playing the Nazi card,^[2] by analogy to playing the race card. The tactic is often used to derail arguments, because such comparisons tend to distract and anger the opponent.^[2]

Fallacious nature of the argument

Reductio ad Hitlerum is no more than guilt by association, a form of association fallacy.^[2][3] The fallacy claims that a policy leads to—or is the same as—one advocated or implemented by Adolf Hitler or the Third Reich, and so "proves" that the original policy is undesirable. For example: "Hitler loved animals, so animal protection is a fascist activity [because the things Hitler did were wrong, or because it could lead to results ideologically or morally aligned with Hitler]." Used broadly enough, ad Hitlerum can encompass more than one questionable cause fallacy type, by both inverting cause and effect and by linking an alleged cause to wholly unrelated consequences. For example, Hitler was fond of dogs and children, but to argue that affection for dogs and children is wrong on this basis is not logically sound.

Various criminals, controversial religious and political figures, regimes, and atrocities other than those caused by Hitler, the Nazis and the Holocaust can be used for the same purposes. For example, a reductio ad Stalinum could assert that atheism is a dangerous philosophy because Stalin was an atheist for most of his life.^[4]

The fallacious nature of reductio ad Hitlerum is easily illustrated by identifying X as something that Adolf Hitler or his supporters did promote but which is not considered unethical, such as painting, enjoying classical music, or owning dogs. Misapplication of the fallacy has also been criticised for rejecting reasonable comparisons. By invoking reductio ad Hitlerum, an opponent's view is ridiculed even though the comparison may be relevant.^{[5][not in citation given]}

History of the term

The phrase reductio ad Hitlerum is first known to have been used in an article written by University of Chicago professor Leo Strauss for "Measure: a critical journal" in Spring 1951 ^[6]; it was afterwards made famous in a book published by the same author in 1953 ^[7]Natural Right and History, Chapter II:

In following this movement towards its end we shall inevitably reach a point beyond which the scene is darkened by the shadow of Hitler. Unfortunately, it does not go without saying that in our examination we must avoid the fallacy that in the last decades has frequently been used as a substitute for the reductio ad absurdum: the reductio ad Hitlerum. A view is not refuted by the fact that it happens to have been shared by Hitler.

The phrase was derived from the legitimate logical argument called reductio ad absurdum. The argumentum variant takes its form from the names of many classic fallacies, such as argumentum ad hominem. The ad Nazium variant may be further derived, humorously, from argumentum ad nauseam.

In 2000 traditionalist Catholic Thomas Fleming described its use against traditional values:

Leo Strauss called it the reductio ad Hitlerum. If Hitler liked neoclassical art, that means that classicism in every form is Nazi; if Hitler wanted to strengthen the German family, that makes the traditional family (and its defenders) Nazi; if Hitler spoke of the "nation" or the "folk," then any invocation of nationality, ethnicity, or even folkishness is Nazi ...^[8]

Invocations of the fallacy

American conservative radio host Glenn Beck is often criticized for his frequent use of reductio ad Hitlerum, including a controversial statement comparing the victims of the 2011 Norway attacks to members of the Hitler Youth.^[9] Beck has also been mocked for his consistant use of the fallacy by comedians like Jon Stewart, Lewis Black and Bill Maher, such as comparing the National Endowment for the Arts to Joseph Goebbels^[10] and ACORN to Hitler's "Brown Shirt" soldiers^[11].

Another American right-wing radio host, Rush Limbaugh, coined the word Feminazi. In an episode of Seinfeld, an overtly-demanding soup maker is jokingly referred to as "The Soup Nazi".

See also

• Godwin's law
• Hannibal ad portas ("Hannibal is at the gates") – previous invocation of historical threat
• List of fallacies
• Feminazi

References

External links

• 11 People Who Have Unfairly Been Compared To Hitler - slideshow by The Huffington Post
• "Is it ever OK to call someone a Nazi?". BBC Online (BBC News). 14 July 2010. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10618638. 
• Toying with Hitler and History - slideshow by Der Spiegel