Hitler Card
Hitler Card
Playing the Hitler Card


Common, fallacious argument technique


Comparison of a poorly reputed person or group to the opposition's views to shed poor light on opposition.

Logical Fallacies

Manipulation of context is used and said evil people usually have no relation to the topic.

Preferred Counter-attack

Link to this page, reminding the arguer that said evil group also performed mundane tasks.

The Hitler Card is a common argument technique most often used in arguments over already controversial topics. The key use of the Hitler Card is to asscociate the opposition's stance in the argument with a particularly evil historical group or figure (most commonly, Adolf Hitler). The association is meant to build up a dislike of the opposition, by their newfound relativity to the evil person or group they're compared to.

It is another 'win argument instantly' button, and is usually lengthed to 'win argument instantly, because my opponent is clearly evil'.

Logical Fallacy and MisconceptionsEdit

The key problem with the Hitler Card is the context of the statement is manipulated, to make the opposition look bad. This is especially important when mundane goals and actions are placed in the context of the poorly reputed group or person. Hitler wanted to advance his dreams and ambitions. Dropping Hitler's name from the statement would shed the statement in a good light, whereas adding Hitler's name suddenly turns it into something clearly evil.
Vile Deer

The guys who went after Bambi's family had the right idea, after all.

The fact that Hitler did lots of mundane, everyday things, and supported several stances that were morally 'good' goes usually goes ignored.

Recommended ResponseEdit

Explaining to the arguer that Hitler fed adorable baby deer, breathed air, loved his dog, wore pants and was an ardent anti-smoker and anti-drinker, as well as life-long vegetarian (leave the part where Hitler was a vegan due to a medical condition out). Follow this with an explanation of how a man or group's history does not mean anything in the context of the argument or the argument's participants.

Failing that, a reminder that "Hitler wouldn't care less about how kicking people from clan chats because they kept reciting song lyrics in them (or other act that is the centre of the argument)" could always be useful.