With the end of World War II and the fall of the Third Reich, a jusnaturalist attack on legal positivism gained momentum on the ground that it was the predominant legal thought in the German Weimar Republic and continued to be so during the Nazi regime. In this way, positivism was responsible both for the fall of the republic and for the genocidal functioning of the Hitler regime. Starting with an article by Gustav Radbruch, such attacks continued in the voices of several antipositivists and neo-constitutionalists such as Fuller, Dworkin, Alexy and more recently David Dyzenhaus, a jurist whose arguments this thesis intends to debate. Against these arguments, the objective here is to refute them with the help of the concepts of phantasmagoria and hostility, extracted from the political-juridical thought of Thomas Hobbes. The first concept seeks to demonstrate that Nazi legal thinking was modeled on a transcendental and essentialist way, implying a conception of law as an a priori that should be realized. The second concept determined that in order to realize this phantasmagoria, the legal form could be completely removed. Thus, the Nazi regime, in fact, would be anti-positivist. Thereby, both with the help of Hobbes s theory and historical examples, this thesis aims to dispel such a myth about positivism, stating that, on the contrary, Nazi legal thought was closer to natural-law, and that the anti-positivist and neo-constitutionalist theses, contrary to what intend or claim, may ultimately provide help to authoritarian regimes seize power. Thus, a formalist law interpretation must be seen as more appropriate than an interpretation based on principles.