Reductio ad Hitlerum

Reductio ad Hitlerum (pseudo-Latin for "reduction to Hitler";^[1] sometimes argumentum ad Hitlerum, "argument to Hitler", or ad Nazium, "to Nazism") is the attempt to invalidate someone else's position on the basis that the same view was held by Adolf Hitler or the Nazi Party,^[2] for example: "Hitler believed in eugenics, X believes in eugenics, therefore X is a Nazi".^[3]

Coined by Leo Strauss in 1951, reductio ad Hitlerum borrows its name from the term used in logic, reductio ad absurdum (reduction to the absurd).^[2] According to Strauss, reductio ad Hitlerum is a form of ad hominem, ad misericordiam, or a fallacy of irrelevance. The suggested rationale is one of guilt by association. It is a tactic often used to derail arguments, because such comparisons tend to distract and anger the opponent, as Hitler and Nazism have been condemned in the modern world.^[4]

Fallacious nature

Reductio ad Hitlerum is a form of association fallacy.^[4][5] The argument is 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.

Another instance of reductio ad Hitlerum is asking a question of the form "You know who else...?" with the deliberate intent of impugning a certain idea or action by implying Hitler held that idea or performed such action.^[6]

An invocation of Hitler or Nazism is not a reductio ad Hitlerum when it illuminates the argument instead of causing distraction from it.^[7]

History

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;^[8] it was made famous in a book by the same author published in 1953^[2] 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 ...^[9]

Limits to classification as a fallacy

It has been argued by historians studying the Holocaust that not all comparisons to Hitler and Nazism are always logical fallacies since if they all were, there would be nothing to learn from the events that led to the holocaust. That would undermine the entire significance of studying the Holocaust to avoid future genocides.^[10][11]

Proponents of this point do make distinctions between many different categories of comparison(s) to Hitler, some of which are fallacies, some of which are not, and some of which may or may not be fallacies. This approach is also critical to strict refusal to acknowledge similarities to holocaust, since there were early stages leading up to it and policies today can be comparable to those without being comparable to the "final solution". Advocates of this approach argue that such early stages are those where something can really be done about it, before it is too late.^[12] Categories include:

• Similarities that are not in any way related to political or institutional decision making, e.g. going on walks or wearing expensive clothes. These are invariably fallacies when used as arguments.

• Similarities that are related to politics, in the absence of centralized power. This example usually refers to political party and movements still struggling to gain power. These similarities can only be to early stages of Nazism, not to a full-blown organized genocide. These comparisons may or may not be fallacies: a detailed analysis of methods, decision-making and ideology is necessary to determine that.

• Pointing out that Hitler did some things that are often considered to be related to being good in the context of criticizing psychological assumptions of them being connected, without implying that anyone doing them are like Hitler in other ways. E.g. that Hitler's engagement for animal protection shows that treatment of animals is divorced from treatment of humans, not implying a negative connection but mere non-connection. This is not an example of the fallacy, though not directly related to the study of organized genocide either.

• Pointing out that the Nazis believed in some things that are often thought to be protection from persecution within the context of rejecting assumptions about connections between concepts and tolerance. For example that the Nazis believed homosexuality to be innate and far from tolerating it extended their homophobia to relatives as well, just to show that ideas on origin of a behavior (in this case homosexuality, but also applicable to other things) is unrelated to tolerance of said behavior and not implying that an idea is Nazi-like. This is not a fallacy. It does not show what should be done to prevent repetition, but it narrows it down by eliminating irrelevancies.

• Pointing out similarities between the Nazi chain of command and modern chain of command as a risk factor for genocide shared between Nazi and modern society in general without applying it to individuals specifically, e.g. that administrative and military laws are significant risk factors. It does not imply advocacy of a repetition of the Nuremberg trials to those who only follow orders/obey laws, partly since referring to that trial as a source of authority would promote the death penalty exactly as much as "superior orders is no defense" and partly since forcing individual executioners into a damned if you do and damned if you don't situation is ineffective for preventing organized genocides like the Holocaust. Instead, it is criticism of structures and laws that lead to dangerous officiousness. This is not a fallacy. It is relevant for genocide studies.^[12]

Antecedents

Although named for and formalized around Hitler, the logical fallacy existed prior to the Second World War. There were other individuals from history who were used as stand-ins for pure evil.^[13] In the 18th, 19th and early 20th centuries the Pharaoh of the Book of Exodus was commonly seen as the most villainous person in history.^[13] In the years prior to the Civil War, abolitionists referred to slaveholders as modern-day Pharaohs. After VE Day, Pharaoh continued to appear in the speeches of social reformers like Martin Luther King Jr.^[13] Judas Iscariot and Pontius Pilate were also commonly held up as pure evil. However, there was no universal Hitler-like person and different regions and times used different stand-ins.^[13] In the years after the American Revolution, King George III was often vilified in the United States. Andrew Jackson was also called King Andrew the First. During the Civil War, some Southerners spoke of Lincoln in Hitler-like terms. Some Confederates even called Lincoln a "modern Pharaoh."^[13]

Invocations

In 1991, Michael André Bernstein alleged reductio ad Hitlerum over a full-page advertisement placed in The New York Times by the Lubavitch community, following the Crown Heights Riot, under the heading "This Year Kristallnacht Took Place on August 19th Right Here in Crown Heights." Henry Schwarzschild, who had witnessed Kristallnacht, wrote to the New York Times that "however ugly were the anti-Semitic slogans and the assaultive behavior of people in the streets [during the Crown Heights riots]... one thing that clearly did not take place was a Kristallnacht."^[14]

American conservative radio and television 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.^[15] Beck has also compared the National Endowment for the Arts to Joseph Goebbels^[16] and ACORN to Hitler's "Brown Shirts".^[17]

The American Conservative accused Jonah Goldberg's book Liberal Fascism of employing the reductio fallacy:

That Nazism and contemporary liberalism both promote healthy living is as meaningless a finding as that bloody marys and martinis may both be made with gin. Repeatedly, Goldberg fails to recognize a reductio ad absurdum. ... In no case does Goldberg uncover anything more ominous than a coincidence.^[18]

A variation of the fallacy, Reductio ad Stalinum, also known as red-baiting, has surfaced in political discourse, often targeted at social democratic figures to compare them with Josef Stalin and other Communist dictators in history.^{[19][20][21][22]}

During the U.S. Presidential primaries of 2016, Republican candidate Donald J. Trump has been repeatedly compared to Hitler by commentators and comedians.^[23][24]

During the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016 pro exit Conservative Party (UK) politician Boris Johnson compared the EU's aims to Hitler's, saying both involved the intention to unify Europe under a single "authority". The comparison was described as "offensive and desperate" by his opponents.^[25]

See also

• Godwin's law
• List of fallacies

References

External links

• "Is it ever OK to call someone a Nazi?". BBC News. 14 July 2010. 
• Toying with Hitler and History – slideshow by Der Spiegel
• Mike Huckabee's reductio ad Hitlerum, Lincoln Mitchell, April 7 2013
• Harris, Adam J. L.; Hsu, Anne S.; Madsen, Jens K. (11 June 2012). "Because Hitler did it! Quantitative tests of Bayesian argumentation using ad hominem" (PDF). Thinking & Reasoning. London, UK: Psychology Press. 18 (3): 311–343. doi:10.1080/13546783.2012.670753. Retrieved 14 January 2015.