Daisy Garner '21 | Opinion: Who Should Be Called a Nazi?

Politicians on the left, right, and center are being called Nazis. All around the world, people are called Nazis. Trump is called a Nazi for racist statements, Biden is called a Nazi for fears that he will limit Americans’ freedoms.  

But when we feel like someone is doing something we find wrong or evil, should we call them a “Nazi”, rather than searching for another term? 

We first need to know what a Nazi was. A Nazi was a member of the NSDAP, or the National Socialist German Workers' Party. National Socialism, also known as Nazism, regards the “ideologies” and practices associated with the NSDAP and similar far-right groups. The following traits are associated with Nazism: 

• Anti-Marxism/anti-communism: specifically rejecting the ideas of class conflict, universal equality, cosmopolitan internationalism, and wanting people to subordinate for the “common good”

• Anti-free market capitalism 

• Anti-democracy: specifically against a liberal democracy or parliamentary system)

• Nationalistic 

• Racist: supporting the pseudoscientific eugenics, or “race science”

• Promoting censorship and disinformation 

It is, and probably always will be, unknown how many people exactly died in the Holocaust, but Nazis caused the deaths of over 80 million people—including Jewish people, the Sinti, the handicapped, Slavic people, Communists, and defectors, among others—on ideological grounds. From mass gassing to pogroms, the Nazis’ actions were heinous. 

Today, neo-Nazis exist. There are modern extremists who try to emulate the Nazis of the Third Reich, hate Jews, and love Hitler. I do not think we should avoid the “neo-Nazi” label for someone who is actually a neo-Nazi. However, the problem with liberally using the label “Nazi”, especially when describing someone who is not actually a neo-Nazi, is that while you accomplish your likely goal of pointing out the strong evils of another’s actions, when you use this label indiscriminately you risk the term “Nazi” losing both its specificity and its power.

It is important to know to know that the rise of national socialism, and the term Nazi, was specific. It was specific to mostly Germany, specific to a time period, and specific to certain goals. 

The Holocaust was also explicitly and principallyanti-semitic: Nazis viewed “the Jew” as their “cardinal enemy.” 

Rabbi Abraham Cooper, Associate Dean at the Simon Wiesenthal Center and Global Social Action Director summed up these arguments in a statement regarding an ad released by the Jewish Democratic Council of America (JDCA) comparing Trump’s demagoguery to the rise of fascism in Germany. 

"For 75 years Jews have emphasized the uniqueness of the Nazi savagery, racism and genocide that mass murdered a third of our people and led to tens of millions dead during WWII," Cooper stressed.  

The Anti-Defamation League also states the clear problem with this comparison: "misplaced comparisons trivialise this unique tragedy in human history," the ADL's national director Jonathan Greenblatt says. "Particularly when public figures invoke the Holocaust in an effort to score political points." 

This specificity—or “uniqueness”—is important for both accountability and addressing the atrocities of Nazi Germany. The Germans and other specific perpetrators must accept their accountability and the Holocaust should be seen as a genocide aimed at particular groups. 

Secondly, calling someone a “Nazi” is not a broad term. Things like anti-semitism and racism are dangerous, and can lead to things from exclusion to murder and genocide. However, a racist comment does not mean that one is necessarily a Nazi, nor does promoting internet censorship. 

The Nazis’ “25 Points/National Socialist Program,” adopted in 1920, shows the extreme beliefs of Nazis and how they extended beyond racism, promoting ideas like nationalism and public health. Here are some example points:

• “8. All immigration of non-Germans must be prevented. We demand that all non-Germans, who have immigrated to Germany since 2 August 1914, be required immediately to leave the Reich.”

• “9. All citizens of the state shall be equal as regards rights and obligations.”

• “18. We demand struggle without consideration against those whose activity is injurious to the general interest. Common national criminals, usurers, profiteers and so forth are to be punished with death, without consideration of confession or race.”

• “21. The state is to care for the elevating national health by protecting the mother and child, by outlawing child-labor, by the encouragement of physical fitness, by means of the legal establishment of a gymnastic and sport obligation, by the utmost support of all organizations concerned with the physical instruction of the young.”

One can see that not only are the Nazi ideas unique and multidimensional, they are also extreme. The actions and beliefs of the Nazis do not equal censoring a webpage or making a racist statement. 

Why is the term used so often then? A BBC article states that according to the Anti-Defamation League, people use Nazi comparisons because it is the "most available historical event illustrating right versus wrong." Similarly, the internet adage Godwin’s Law states that "as an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1.” 

Scott Jennings, an opinion contributor for the Courier Journal, states that the overuse of “Nazi” “normalizes a brand that should never be remembered as anything but abnormally evil.” I think Jennings perfectly sums it up: 

“To call an American political actor a Nazi devalues the millions of lives lost at the hands of the brutal Nazi regime. Their memories are more important than your winning a 24-hour news cycle, or posting some dumb picture of yourself on social media thinking you’ve done anything other than make American politics worse in the process.”

If someone does not fit the profile of a neo-Nazi, I suggest alternative terms: white supremacist, racist, or anti-semite. A lone action could warrant “that was racist” or “that was anti-semitic”. I understand the urge to call someone whose actions you find evil a Nazi, but to help this term keep its specificity and power, we must not use it so liberally.