In 1940,Denmark led by prime ministerThorvald Stauning surrendered toNazi Germany after six hours of fighting, believing further resistance would only result in the futile loss of more Danish lives[1]
Argumentum ad baculum (Latin for "argument to thecudgel" or "appeal to the stick") is a type of argument made when one attempts toappeal to force[2] to bring about the acceptance of a conclusion.[3][4][5] One participates inargumentum ad baculum when one emphasizes the negative consequences of holding the contrary position, regardless of the contrary position'struth value—particularly when the argument-maker himself causes (or threatens to cause) those negative consequences.[6] It is a special case of theappeal to consequences.[7] Argumentation scholarDouglas Walton states that many texts on the matter "take it for granted that ad baculum arguments are inherently fallacious" and continued that "some of the textbooks, especially some of the more interesting accounts, suggest that this type of argument may not always be fallacious, and cite instances where appealing to force or threat or fear could be reasonable in a given context. The issue raised by these provocative accounts is how one should distinguish between the fallacious and the nonfallacious use of the argumentum ad baculum".[8]
^Henrik Dethlefsen, "Denmark and the German Occupation: Cooperation, Negotiation, or Collaboration,"Scandinavian Journal of History. 15:3 (1990), pp. 193, 201–202.
^"American Notes".The Illustrated London News. Vol. LXXI, no. 2009. 29 December 1877. p. 622. Retrieved24 June 2021....that uncompromisingSumner whose eloquence exasperated a fiery Southerner into the employment of theargumentum ad baculum...
