Reductio Ad Hitlerum - Fallacious Nature of The Argument

Fallacious Nature of The Argument

Reductio ad Hitlerum is no more than guilt by association, a form of association fallacy. 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 ." 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 persuasive.

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.

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.

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.