When other than in an occassion when the person/idea/etc. is actually a National Socialist himself ia comparison to Hitler, German National Socialism, etc. appropriate? Is it appropriate other than for other advocates of a form of genocide/ethnic cleansing?
Discussion of the classification of types of funny mustaches.
When the person/group believes or is doing something that resembles Hitler or the Nazis. I’ve because largely opposed to the whole idea of yelling “Godwin” at this point, since Godwin’s Law has become exactly what it was created to oppose; a means of shouting down opponents. It has also become a method of defending fascist attitudes and bigotry, used to shout down anyone who tries to point out the obvious comparison, which makes it actually dangerous.
It’s an association fallacy, or ad hominem. I guess it would be appropriate in any debate where it is useful to make the other guy’s motives clear, and thereby cast doubt on his credibility.
But it is often just a fallacy, of the “You know who else believed in God? Hitler!” As we see from the above, it often ticks people off when you call them on it. 
Regards,
Shodan
You know who else asked this question?
The point of invoking Godwin’s law isn’t to prevent all comparisons to the Nazis, it’s to prevent glib comparisons to the Nazis.
You know who else couldn’t get a link to work?
Me. Sieg Heil.
Regards,
Shodan
But you know who could get a link right the 2nd time? Me.
Originally , perhaps. These days it’s used to prevent any and all comparisons to the Nazis regardless of how appropriate they are.
Damn meta-Nazis!
I think the OP has muddled his thesis. “Godwin” and “comparing someone to Hitler” are two separate things.
I think the OP is asking: when is it appropriate to compare someone/something to Hitler/Nazis?
Calling out “Godwin” is, essentially, the opposite-- that is, claiming the comparison is not appropriate.
If I’m discussing Pol Pot, a comparison to Hitler is not unreasonable. If I’m discussing Tim Tebow, it is.
Back around 2000, I said that you could legitimately compare Saddam Hussein to Hitler. Both were brutal totalitarian dictators. Both killed large numbers of people. Both had ethnic elements in their policies. Both were threatening to neighbouring countries.
You’re off by about 10 years. After the first Gulf War, he wasn’t much of a threat at all.
Yes, I agree he had been contained by 2000. I was talking more in an overall historical context.
I’ve often heard mentioning Hitler or the Nazis in a thread referred to as “Godwinizing the thread” however.
Yes. It’s a statement that a real argument is not being made, just the inevitable end of the line where the argument devolves into accusations of being comparable to Hitler. However, that is a legitimate case to be made, in some instances, that a comparison to Hitler is apt. The comparison is not, per se, a fallacy.
It has been fashionable in some circles to use Hitler and Nazism as an exaggerated comparison. For example, when police arrest a bunch of protesters and clear them off the streets, the police might be compared to Nazi Fascist Gestapo. That’s clearly a massive exaggeration – real Gestapo were in the business of hauling people by the multiple millions to concentration camps.
Likewise, when a prosecutor tries to convict a mass murderer who killed a dozen people, he might make a closing argument to the jury comparing the defendant to something out of Nazi Germany. Clearly, another massive exaggeration.
So I usually thought of it in those terms – Godwinization referring to the exaggerated comparison of something bad to Nazi’s. As suggested in some other posts above, this is when the Nazi comparison is NOT appropriate, and that’s what I think Godwin refers to.
I’d say it’s perfectly fair when 100,000+ people have been killed or actions were started which, if not stopped, could plausibly lead to a 100,000+ people being killed.
The point being that there was a systematic extermination process, overseen by bureaucrats and executed by thugs.
That depends. What is considered “exaggerated” is subjective. I think people make the mistake of believing that only the most heinous actions by a person/political leader/nation are fair game for a Nazi comparison, and in a debate some people have an incentive to dismiss certain actions as not evil enough to merit the comparison, and thus they feel safe in ridiculing the one who drew it. But it’s helpful to remember that the Nazi leadership was condemned for broad crimes such as waging aggressive war, and committing crimes against humanity. Any nation or leader today can commit such crimes, and Nazi comparisons would be valid (though perhaps overwrought). The point wouldn’t necessarily be to tar the target of the comparison as being “evil”, but more to say “Hey, we condemned Nazi Germany for Action X, so why does Examplestan think they can get away with Action X?”