Should Hitler have been aborted/murdered/otherwise killed before his rise to power? - Page 2

SlowwHand · May 30, 2003, 22:40

Read the book. Well in advance.

Jaguar · May 30, 2003, 22:43

Even if he says he's going to do evil stuff, you can't kill him for it. You can only kill him for actually doing evil stuff.

loinburger · May 30, 2003, 22:45

The answer kind of depends on whether or not we've got free will. If we do, then Hitler's innocent until he's not. If we don't, then **** 'em.

SlowwHand · May 30, 2003, 22:47

At the very least, people should have believed what was going on much, much sooner.

David Floyd · May 30, 2003, 23:27

MtG:

Why would Germany want a war in 1914? Germany didn't start the fight, or at the very least they weren't solely responsible for it.

And the irony is, the nation that made the Entente victory possible, the US, didn't even sign onto the Treaty of Versailles, because they didn't feel that it fit into the 14 Points - ie, it really wasn't all that fair.

And you would be right if you made the point that the terms Germany gave to France after the Franco-Prussian War were also unfair, but that isn't the point.

Cruddy · May 30, 2003, 23:34

On balance, no.

True, it would have prevented the Holocaust.

But I don't think it would have prevented WW2 as such (Fascists V Communists V Capitalists). The factors leading up to it (population, economic, lack of militarisation).

Also, Germany might have ended up with a leader who wasn't a total lunatic. Scary thought that.

Better the devil you know.

MichaeltheGreat · May 31, 2003, 00:26

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
How is Germany invading Belgium starting the fight when Russia and France declared war on Germany before that?

And what a coincidence, Germany was already pre-mobilized and ready to go.

Neither the French nor Russians were ever in hell going to come get them, but Germany was set to go.

edit - never mind the details of Germany declaring war on France and Russia either, but the first decisive commitment of forces was von Bulow's move on Liege.

MichaeltheGreat · May 31, 2003, 00:33

Quote:

Originally posted by David Floyd
MtG:

Why would Germany want a war in 1914? Germany didn't start the fight, or at the very least they weren't solely responsible for it.

Well, since I've never had the opportunity to interview the Kaiser or Ludendorff, I can't tell you why he chose to declare war on Russia on August 1st or France on August 3, or why he decided to execute the Schlieffen plan, even though it called for invasion of a neutral country.

Quote:

And you would be right if you made the point that the terms Germany gave to France after the Franco-Prussian War were also unfair, but that isn't the point.

My point is that an attacker who loses isn't in a good negotiating position. The choices are (a) don't attack; (b) if you do attack, don't lose (blame von Bulow for hanging up von Kluck in that regard); or (c) take what you get dealt if you screw up a and b.

St Leo · May 31, 2003, 01:26

It is logically impossible to abort Hitler. Hitler wasn't Hitler before being born.

David Floyd · May 31, 2003, 02:11

Quote:

Well, since I've never had the opportunity to interview the Kaiser or Ludendorff, I can't tell you why he chose to declare war on Russia on August 1st or France on August 3, or why he decided to execute the Schlieffen plan, even though it called for invasion of a neutral country.

And, for that matter, why did Russia choose to encourage Serbia to be hostile and belligerent towards Austria-Hungary in the first place?

Quote:

My point is that an attacker who loses isn't in a good negotiating position. The choices are (a) don't attack; (b) if you do attack, don't lose (blame von Bulow for hanging up von Kluck in that regard); or (c) take what you get dealt if you screw up a and b.

It's hard to say who the responsible party is in WW1 - I think it's fair to say that all major powers bear some of the blame.

As to Germany losing, read a book called "The Pity of War" by Niall Ferguson - it presents an interesting viewpoint.

MichaeltheGreat · May 31, 2003, 02:15

I wouldn't say Germany bears even most of the blame, but they made the mistake of piling in to a fight that they later lost.

The causes are interesting, because they're so damn convoluted.

David Floyd · May 31, 2003, 02:18

Yes, going to war is always wrong, but on the other hand, I think that Germany had a reasonable expectation of winning the war at the outset (or, at least, a damn certain expectation of not losing to any combination of European powers), and, before the US entered the war in a major way, I think the facts somewhat bore this out.

Inverse Icarus · May 31, 2003, 02:20

No.

MichaeltheGreat · May 31, 2003, 02:27

Quote:

Originally posted by David Floyd
Yes, going to war is always wrong, but on the other hand, I think that Germany had a reasonable expectation of winning the war at the outset (or, at least, a damn certain expectation of not losing to any combination of European powers), and, before the US entered the war in a major way, I think the facts somewhat bore this out.

Germany was ****ed once von Bulow got too cautious. The rest of it was just a long bloody stalemate.

Az · May 31, 2003, 02:35

Yes, if you come from the future, and know the consequences, No, otherwise.

David Floyd · May 31, 2003, 02:39

On the Western Front it tended towards stalemate. However, a German general named von Mudra also won some pretty impressive victories on a "stalemated" front.

Further, from 1914 on, Germany knocked out at least one combatant per year out of the war (Belgium, Serbia, Romania, Russia, and Italy was on the way out as well).

The Germans inflicted insanely higher casualties on the French/BEF than the French and BEF did on them, and while they stayed on the defensive - with only local counterattacks - this was even more pronounced. The French and British were intentionally reporting significantly distorted casualty figures from the battlefield to the politicians.

Even Verdun probably could have been won if the Germans had kept at it, and as late as 1918, the only reason the BEF was able to advance was because the German army in Flanders (the British sector) was voluntarily falling back - anytime they stood and fought the BEF, the BEF took a bit of an ass-whipping in terms of casualties vs. rate/amount of advance, particularly as compared to the American advance.

Inverse Icarus · May 31, 2003, 02:39

Quote:

Originally posted by Azazel
Yes, if you come from the future, and know the consequences, No, otherwise.

did you learn nothign from red alert? if hitler isn't there, stalin takes over almost all of europe.

jesus christ... kids these days.

Inverse Icarus · May 31, 2003, 02:47

But why the confrontational attitude if someone across a Boston subway platform happens to say: "Whoa! Check out that guy with the Hitler mustache! It's totally like Hitler's! It's all short and stuff. Remember when Hitler was all, you know, killing everybody? That was raw! Hey, why is that guy staring at us?"

On one hand, a little hostility is understandable. You're just standing around, minding your own business, waiting for the Red Line, and some guy starts smarting off — just because you happen to have facial hair practically copyrighted by one of history's bloodiest tyrants. It's not like you're wearing a swastika on your arm, and even if you were — who's to say it's not a different swastika? You know, an anti-racist swastika. Your own thing. It's like, "look! It's not a swastika! It's a nicetika!"

Agathon · May 31, 2003, 02:52

Quote:

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat

My point is that an attacker who loses isn't in a good negotiating position. The choices are (a) don't attack; (b) if you do attack, don't lose (blame von Bulow for hanging up von Kluck in that regard); or (c) take what you get dealt if you screw up a and b.

But it's also true that lording it over a defeated enemy is extremely bad character and, more importantly, is bad policy.

Let's cheer for the US for a minute (

) - the way Japan was dealt with after the war was more reasonable. Impoverishing and humiliating a defeated enemy just makes them want to get back at you even more: after all the desire for revenge is one of the most potent human emotions. By all means try to minimize the future threat from a beaten enemy, but don't humiliate them.

David Floyd · May 31, 2003, 02:53

Well, I'm pretty sure the atomic bombings said "*****!" better than anything we could have done after the war

Nubclear · May 31, 2003, 03:28

Quote:

Originally posted by Uber KruX
"look! It's not a swastika! It's a nicetika!"

I think I should also mention that I love your avatar

Az · May 31, 2003, 03:35

Quote:

Originally posted by Uber KruX

did you learn nothign from red alert? if hitler isn't there, stalin takes over almost all of europe.

exactly.

MichaeltheGreat · May 31, 2003, 03:35

Quote:

Originally posted by Agathon
But it's also true that lording it over a defeated enemy is extremely bad character and, more importantly, is bad policy.

Well, let's think of it this way. Versailles let the Germans off a lot more easily than say... the way the Romans dealt with Carthage.

Quote:

Let's cheer for the US for a minute (

) - the way Japan was dealt with after the war was more reasonable.

Ain't this a role reversal?

The US motive wasn't nearly that benevolent. Rapid restoration of Japan was necessary to act as a forward containment against Soviet power projection abilities, so a lot of the "enlightenment" of the Marshall plan was very firmly rooted in the anti-Communist strategies being implemented by the US.

Quote:

Impoverishing and humiliating a defeated enemy just makes them want to get back at you even more: after all the desire for revenge is one of the most potent human emotions. By all means try to minimize the future threat from a beaten enemy, but don't humiliate them.

How much you can get away with also depends on how thoroughly you've broken them.

Az · May 31, 2003, 03:37

Michael, you commie.

[/Ned]

MichaeltheGreat · May 31, 2003, 03:38

JohnT · May 31, 2003, 10:42

Quote:

Originally posted by Tassadar5000

I think I should also mention that I love your avatar

Yes, a swastika made of hammers and sickles. That's nice.

BeBro · May 31, 2003, 10:57

Aborted - of course not, unless he comitted a lot of capital crimes before he was born.

Murdered - of course not (before his rise to power - after he did what he did in power it is debatable)

Otherwise killed - maybe executed because of treason after his coup in 1923? Not sure.

orange · May 31, 2003, 12:19

Quote:

But it's also true that lording it over a defeated enemy is extremely bad character and, more importantly, is bad policy.

Agreed, but let us not forget that just months earlier the Germans unleashed Brest-Litovsk, which was as bad as if not worse than Versailles.

Urban Ranger · May 31, 2003, 12:50

No.

Who knows what would happen after Hitler was killed? Some far worse monster could have emerged.

Urban Ranger · May 31, 2003, 12:53

Quote:

Originally posted by orange
Agreed, but let us not forget that just months earlier the Germans unleashed Brest-Litovsk, which was as bad as if not worse than Versailles.

The thing is, Versailles punished Germany as a country, including all its people. Punishing only those who were responsible is fair. Seeking compensation for damages is fair. Punishing those who had nothing to do with the war is not fair.