Hitler is sometimes a good point to make

[jackfaire]

I know everyone says if you start comparing people to Hitler and the Nazi's then you have lost the argument. I think that's not really true.

For example a Jewish man years later would admit that early on he was one of the many supporters of Hitler before the Ghettos and the camps. He would listen to the speeches and cheer. Then he started hearing things he didn't like and was going, "Hey wait a minute" while being prodded onto a cattle car.

If someone were being compared to Hitler in that context it's historically significant. I agree just randomly calling someone Hitler because you dislike them is an epic fail but if your drawing historic parallels then it is no more an epic fail than to discuss a technologically advanced culture interacting with a culture less so using the Native Americans meet Europeans as an example of what could happen.

BTW no particular argument sparked this it was just a random thought I had.

[HYHYBT]

The problem is not that the comparison is never apt, but mainly that it is grossly overused. You can draw parallels between almost any evil and something he or his followers did... but that makes it too easy, and it's usually such a stretch and such a difference of scale and degree that it's worthless.

When a comparison is legitimate, there's usually some other one that would work as well. And when there isn't, well, despite the "law" conversations involving Hitler and such do sometimes go well. It just has to be *directly* relevant and serious enough to justify the comparison.

[mikoyan29]

My problem is that Stalin never gets the same treatment. In fact, there aren't many Communist leaders that seem to get the same treatment. Mao killed how many millions and I can go to a store and get smiling Mao statues. If a store sold smiling Hitler statues, there would be protests up the wazoo.

[Andara Bledin]

I'm pretty sure that Eddie Izzard had the right of it: The world at large doesn't care if a dictator kills millions of his own, but once they start going after someone else, then it's on. "After a couple of years, we won't stand for that, will we?"

^-.-^

[Gravekeeper]

I'm pretty sure that Eddie Izzard had the right of it:

I was just about to quote that. Beat me too it. ;p

[SongsOfDragons]

I think 'Godwin's Law' is a bit ridiculous, but I get where the proponents are coming from - I got severely bored in history lessons when all we would focus on was WWII, and not even the foreign bits, just the stuff in Europe...FFS. Lots of ick happened and we shouldn't forget but we've been over this - Tell me about Japan!! ...Nope. I was so happy when we did the Vietnam War for part of our GCSE, because it wasn't something that had already been covered to death already. Though, I've been to some great WWII Europe exhibitions, Flambards park and Eden Camp being my favourites.

If the reference or comparison to something the Nazis did is relevant to the argument, then it should be considered with due weight rather than dismissed out of hand. Discussing Jewish history, German history, Socialist movements, the 1930s, the arrogance of art schools (some of Hitler's paintings are gorgeous!!), er, well lots of topics really. O'course this is why I don't argue with children/teenagers any more because they always invoke Godwin's. (No offence to any of those on this site; you're awesome. I've noticed the Escapist forums are notorious for this...)

Agree about Stalin. He was too far away from Britain and even further from the US, and secluded (IIRC?) so few cared. He needs to be read about more so people have a larger reference pool to draw upon for some of the topics I mentioned above...though I have to say I scare more when Cambodia's used, because in my opinion that seemed a helluva lot worse in some cases/areas, one reason because they slaughtered all the intellectuals and the educated...

[DrFaroohk]

I think that whole Godwin thing was invented by Republicans to counter when someone was like "Ya know...you guys are doing a lot of stuff the nazis did."

Had to find some way to argue with it. Personally I've never seen a problem with it. It's good for debunking generic arguments. Such as "it's my job, just following orders". Sorry, but history has proven that you cannot use that argument. It is invalid.

[jackfaire]

My problem is that Stalin never gets the same treatment. In fact, there aren't many Communist leaders that seem to get the same treatment. Mao killed how many millions and I can go to a store and get smiling Mao statues. If a store sold smiling Hitler statues, there would be protests up the wazoo.

Actually I have used Stalin though in conjunction with Hitler,

"Voting for the lesser of two evils doesn't tell the people you hate Hitler enough to vote for Stalin it tells them you want Stalin in power."

[SkullKing]

I was underthe impression that godwin's law, was meant to stop the argument "you know who did that? the nazis did". As a way to say that something was inherently wrong. Because the nazi´s did so many things in so many areas in so many places. That it could be used just about anything and didn´t have any weight.

[MrsEclipse]

Originally Godwin's law stated: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1," and I believe it was to get people to think harder before making glib comparisons to Nazis. The clause about automatically losing the argument was added in later by third parties.

Personally I think there are plenty of situations where a comparison to Nazis would be completely accurate, but if you were to pick something else for your comparison, people would have to think a little harder to make the connection because they weren't expecting it, and they might give your argument more weight.

[Mytical]

I am about to make a few statements that if not thought about will probably make more then a few people upset..just a warning.

In the grand scheme of things, while what the nazis did was undoubtedly evil..Hitler and company are not the top of the evil ladder. In history there are those groups that made them look like boy scouts. I mean the Romans..while a great society used to feed people to lions...and even they were not the worst. It is not even about genocide. Many societies would kill anybody or anything that was not of their people.

The inquisition, the mongol horde, and there are others that did things that were both cruel and evil. So..can somebody tell me why Hitler is the one brought up when talking about 'evil'?

[Lachrymose]

Currency, probably.

I mean, of course you have more current, more evil people. But that's probably a big part of it.

People can relate more easily when there are still others alive who went through it.

ETA: Also, were there ever 6 million of another certain ethnic background affected? Honest question.

[BlaqueKatt]

Also, were there ever 6 million of another certain ethnic background affected? Honest question.

um the europeans slaughtered around 24 million native americans....the rape of nanking, not 6 million, but I'd say it was worse, here's a handy list of the 20th century's worst genocides.

[Andara Bledin]

I think that whole Godwin thing was invented by Republicans to counter when someone was like "Ya know...you guys are doing a lot of stuff the nazis did."

Not even remotely.

For one, the whole "republicans acting like Nazis" thing didn't come about till after Bush was in office, and that didn't happen until '92, two years after Godwin made his little observation, which was based on years of discussion observation and was aimed particularly at Usenet discussions.

Godwin's contention was that since Nazis are sometimes an appropriate comparison, that using them spuriously when not called for reduced the value of more accurate comparisons.

Considering how many people dismissed out of hand instances where governmental actions in the US actually did mirror actions of the Nazis, it's pretty obvious that he was correct.

^-.-^

[Lachrymose]

um the europeans slaughtered around 24 million native americans....the rape of nanking, not 6 million, but I'd say it was worse, here's a handy list of the 20th century's worst genocides.

Thanks. Like I said, honest question. (And yeah, I know I could have googled it. )