They invoked Nazi analogies.

And as far back as 2005, libertarian writer Dave Weigel wrote that we'd all be "better off rolling back Godwin's Law and admitting the all-purpose usefulness of Nazi analogies."

Why did he regret using the Nazi analogy?

Using Nazi analogies to criticise Israel or Zionism may be offensive, but should it be against the law?

And there's an end of the trauma-for-trauma, Nazi analogy.

To return to the Nazi analogy, if there had been units of Hitler's holdouts in some Bavarian redoubt, the occupation armies of the four powers would have dealt with them.

When you make the Nazi analogy, it cannot be tossed off as, 'Oh, how silly of me to have done this.'

The point as I see it is why use the Nazi analogy?

Some bioethicists characterize the use of the "Nazi analogy" as inappropriate when applied to quality of life decisions; Arthur Caplan called this rhetoric "odiously wrong".