Should Hitler have been aborted/murdered/otherwise killed before his rise to power?

Nubclear · May 30, 2003, 20:10

Vote

JohnT · May 30, 2003, 20:12

Uh, no? What for?

Kidicious · May 30, 2003, 20:14

Yes....

Ok, bye.

SlowwHand · May 30, 2003, 20:22

He said what he was going to do, years before he did it.
Wrote it in a book that became required reading in Germany, although it was panned by the vast majority when the 1st edition was published.

So, yes.

JohnT · May 30, 2003, 20:25

And expressing your thoughts is worth being killed for?

Nubclear · May 30, 2003, 20:26

Quote:

Originally posted by JohnT
And expressing your thoughts is worth being killed for?

No. Murdering 3 million jews and causing the deaths of 50 million more people however....

But I wouldn't.

Zylka · May 30, 2003, 20:27

Whoa whoa whoa... I thought Stalin had majority part in those 50 million deaths?

Nubclear · May 30, 2003, 20:29

Quote:

Originally posted by Zylka
Whoa whoa whoa... I thought Stalin had majority part in those 50 million deaths?

I think you mean the Red Army.

David Floyd · May 30, 2003, 20:30

Absolutely not.

Oerdin · May 30, 2003, 20:30

Asking all sorts of what if questions is a wast of time. Banana!

JohnT · May 30, 2003, 20:30

Quote:

Originally posted by Tassadar5000

No. Murdering 3 million jews and causing the deaths of 50 million more people however....

But I wouldn't.

Are we talking after the fact or before? I.e., are we supposed to base this question on reading Mein Kampf in 1925 or are we supposed to imagine ourselves in time capsules, going back to right history's wrongs?

SlowwHand · May 30, 2003, 20:32

First and last paragraphs in Introduction, of Mein Kampf.
First publishing November, 1925.

"For years Mein Kampf stood as proof of the blindness and complacency of the world. For in it's pages Hitler announced----long before he came to power---a program of blood and terror in a self-revelation of such overwhelming frankness that few among it's readers had the courage to believe it. Once again it was demonstrated that there was no more effective method of concealment than the boroadest publicity.

That such a man could go so far realizing his ambition, and---above all---could find millions of willing tools and helpers,; that is a phenomenon the world will ponder for centuries to come."---- Konrad Heiden

Zylka · May 30, 2003, 20:32

Quote:

Originally posted by Tassadar5000

I think you mean the Red Army.

Ok. Were they killing German soldiers, or Russian peasants, or both?

OHHHH

Nubclear · May 30, 2003, 20:33

Quote:

Originally posted by JohnT

Are we talking after the fact or before? I.e., are we supposed to base this question on reading Mein Kampf in 1925 or are we supposed to imagine ourselves in time capsules, going back to right history's wrongs?

Well, you could look at it from either viewpoint, but I was looking at it from a "imagine ourselves in time capsules, going back to right history's wrongs" type thing.

JohnT · May 30, 2003, 20:35

And I the other.

DinoDoc · May 30, 2003, 20:35

No, because you'd be murdering an innocent man.

MichaeltheGreat · May 30, 2003, 21:00

Trouble is, Hitler wrote Mein Kampff after his failed little coup-let, so he wasn't quite innocent.

If you wanted to be a weenie and wait until there was undoubtedly adequate cause, the repudiation of the Treaty of Versailles and announced rearmament was time to get him before the rearmament progressed far enough to be problematic.

David Floyd · May 30, 2003, 21:01

But the Treaty of Versailles was extremely unfair to begin with, so why shouldn't he repudiate it?

JCG · May 30, 2003, 21:46

Repudiating Versailles is one thing, doing that while clearly in the process of rearming the country for a new war of expansion sometime in the future is another, IMHO.

Still...I don't support aborting/killing him, because I have no sure way of knowing if say, Goebbels/Goering/Hess/ et al would take his place and end up doing pretty much the same crap.

MichaeltheGreat · May 30, 2003, 21:49

Quote:

Originally posted by David Floyd
But the Treaty of Versailles was extremely unfair to begin with, so why shouldn't he repudiate it?

It was that bit about rearmament and the stated goals of Mein Kampff, etc., that sort of aggravated things.

And the Treaty of Versailles was very fair. It never would have happened if ol' Kaiser Bill hadn't decided to invade and plunder Europe and get a few million people killed in the process. Ask them about "unfair." If the German government didn't like it, they could have simply remained occupied territories of the victorious powers, under some form of government similar to what they intended to impose on those they intended to conquer.

In other words, "**** 'em, they started the fight, and they lost"

MichaeltheGreat · May 30, 2003, 21:50

Quote:

Originally posted by JCG

Still...I don't support aborting/killing him, because I have no sure way of knowing if say, Goebbels/Goering/Hess/ et al would take his place and end up doing pretty much the same crap.

In for a penny, in for a pound. Waste them too.

Imran Siddiqui · May 30, 2003, 21:51

Quote:

In other words, "**** 'em, they started the fight, and they lost"

But Germany didn't start the fight

.

MichaeltheGreat · May 30, 2003, 21:58

I suppose the dirty Belgies kidnapped Karl von Bulow and dragged him to Liege, and the rest of those Germans who came along with him were the rescue party?

Imran Siddiqui · May 30, 2003, 21:59

How is Germany invading Belgium starting the fight when Russia and France declared war on Germany before that?

Shi Huangdi · May 30, 2003, 22:01

No. Before he did his crimes, Hitler was an innocent man with a right to continue living. If someone killed him while he was innocent they would be accountable to God for their crime.

Lonestar · May 30, 2003, 22:07

If you're asking if we would go back in time to kill him...no, what's done is done.

If it happened Naturally...then yes.

DinoDoc · May 30, 2003, 22:15

Quote:

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
I suppose the dirty Belgies kidnapped Karl von Bulow and dragged him to Liege, and the rest of those Germans who came along with him were the rescue party?

If the Germans were spoiling for a fight, they would have done it in 1905.

Joseph · May 30, 2003, 22:23

All three, just take you pick.

History Guy · May 30, 2003, 22:29

Aborted? No!

Killed, yes.

What is the point of the question?

Jaguar · May 30, 2003, 22:37

If you went back in time, (so you knew what he'd eventually do) you should kill him regardless. If you don't know that he's going to kill millions, then you shouldn't kill him.