What Is The Difference Between Hitler's Fallacies In On Nation And Race

Adolf Hitler’s, “On Nation and Race”, was not one of my favorite readings. The way he referred to a race of people was very disturbing to me. Wanting to completely get rid of a race is an awful idea and I will never understand how people actually followed him in his ideas. He acted as if only one race of people should be allowed on this earth which in my eyes is so very wrong. Hitler also compared human beings to nature and animals in a way that I did not understand. He used many fallacies and assumptions in his writings to prove his argument. I believe Hitler himself knew that many people would follow his logic because of his name. He used appeal to authority right way when he began writing and then published his book. People are

He gave examples of historical evidence that he believed to be true. He claimed that cultures have always been led by the higher race. If the higher race mixed with or accepted the lower race then the culture would be destroyed or the entire race of people would be eliminated. He gave examples of the “mingling of Aryan blood with that of the lower people will result as the end of the cultured people”(313). He claimed “no more than Nature desires the mating of a weaker with stronger individuals, even less does she desire the blending of a higher with a lower race...over perhaps hundreds of thousands of years, might be ruined with one blow”(313). He believed nature never wanted people to blend and it had always been this way, so if we change now it would ruin everything. He is convinced people that since it had always been this way it should not be changed. Hitler also uses the fallacy of either/or. He gave the readers two options of what would happen if there was racial crossing. The two options were “ lowering of the level of the higher race or physical and intellectual regression and hence the beginning of a slowly but surely progressing sickness”(314). Neither of these options sounded good, so why wouldn’t the people believe what he was saying? Why wouldn’t they believe his beliefs about the