If you'd had the opportunity to kill Hitler back in the '40s, would you have done it?

[Bake]

Today's "ignoble end" of Qaddafi, and the hand-wringing over it here, made me stop and think about this question. History tells us that there were numerous plots to assassinate Hitler, none of which succeeded. One such plot was considered by a group of German Christian pastors and theologians.

Would it have been murder? Damn straight it would. Would it have been justified? Duh. Would it have been a good thing? You tell me.

That's the question I put to you this evening. I know where I come down on it.

Bake

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

1. Yup.

Although it would have been better to have wasted his ugly ass before 1939.

[Ohio Joe]

2. Yes

I would not even give him a trial.

[Ian David]

3. You go back far enough and just start paying a lot of money for his paintings.

Then, he just stays an artist and never goes into politics.

I think that was the plot of a sci-fi story somewhere.

[Warren DeMontague]

52. the problem is, there was a lot of shit bubbling up in German society then

It's an interesting thought experiment, because we tend to view much of history through the 'great man' (in this case, greatly evil man') lens, but how much of history is driven by individuals and how much by larger forces?

We don't really know.

[Ian David]

88. In other words, someone else might have become Hitler. Maybe El Guapo would have been Hitler. n/t

[Warren DeMontague]

97. You mean the villain from the movie "The Three Amigos"?

[Ian David]

101. Si. n/t

[TheWraith]

134. That is the essential problem. You might kill Hitler, then find Himmler in the top seat.

Or Reinhard Heydrich, possibly even scarier than Hitler. Or someone who might not make Hitler's fatal mistakes: first, moving from bombing British airbases to bombing civilian targets during the Battle of Britain, then later invading the Soviet Union while still fighting a war on the western front.

[zappaman]

4. No

He liked dogs and it's bad to kill someone even if they are incredibly evil.
People are celebrating a brutal tyrant's death?
I weep for the U.S.
:sarcasm:

[whatchamacallit]

11. Lol!

So weak...

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

92. Don't forget he was a vegan.

[pinboy3niner]

95. Should we have a vote...

...on whether the OP's username should have been 'Half-Bake'? :evilgrin:

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Wait Wut]

6. On one condition...

...I get to starve him, beat him, perform experiments on him while he's conscious and then burn him alive.

So, I guess...yep.

[Kaleko]

70. That makes you

a sadistic torturer who enjoys inflicting pain and prolonging it for their own pleasure.

There are medical terms for that kind of mindset.

[Wait Wut]

116. Bummer

I feel so bad that I want to torture Hitler. I think the term you were looking for was sadist. You used a form of it in your first sentence, so not sure why you didn't catch that. But, no, I'm not a sadist. I prefer vengeful bitch that thinks anyone that tortures old people and children (along with anyone else) would do well to take a big dose of their own medicine. I guess if I was a "Christian" (like Hitler) I'd wait until judgment day. I'm not, so I wouldn't. :hi:

[Kaleko]

120. A clinical psychologist would have to classify you as a psychopath and/or sociopath,

judging by what you've written there. You'd fit right in with the likes of Donald Rumsfeld and his merry band of torturers at Abu Ghraib.

What you prefer to call yourself doesn't change the analysis.

[Wait Wut]

123. Where did you get your degree?

You need to get your money back.

:rofl:

[EOTE]

124. Give me a break.

I've known MANY holocaust survivors and I'm pretty sure every one of them would want to do the same thing. Are you saying that all of those holocaust survivors are sadists and psychopaths as well? Get a clue.

[Kaleko]

128. You're pretty sure, eh?

I would have to see some credible statistics before making an assessment as you have done.

It is one thing to have sadistic revenge fantasies after being victimized, but quite another to proudly parade them as a wishlist.

[EOTE]

129. Yes, you're damned right.

Quite a number of them vocalized that exact sentiment to me. The rest of them I'd imagine thought it, but didn't express it for one reason or another. I'd say wanting to torture Hitler makes one a decent human. You wanting to denigrate someone for having that desire seems the sick thing to me.

[Kaleko]

135. Wanting to torture any sentient being at all -

whether a cat, a dog or a mass murderer - and taking pleasure in it, doesn't qualify as a hallmark of what makes us a decent human. It's an affliction and should be recognized as such if it can't be treated, which is often the case because psychopaths resist accurate self-assessment at all costs.

[EOTE]

136. If that's the case, then the majority of people have such an affliction.

And just about every holocaust survivor. Some people are worthy of torture. Recognizing that doesn't make anyone less human.

[Kaleko]

137. "Some people are worthy of torture."

Really?

Really??

Think about that.

Ever heard of the Geneva Convention or looked at the basic human rights granted to all people in all civilized countries on earth, at least by law if not in practice? Yet here you are, wanting to go back to medieval times.

As for your claim that a majority shares your desire to play judge, Jury and torturer/executioner, no, you pulled that one out of the same place where the rest of your statistics came from.

[sibelian]

130. Either you hold yourself to some kind of moral standard

Or you don't.

[Ikonoklast]

7. Hitler would have had the very same 'leftists'

who are wringing their hands over the intimely demise of a brutal military dictator filmed being hung with piano wire so he could watch it while eating schnitzel that evening.

It's just one more way for them to bash Obama, they don't really give two shits about any dead Libyans slaughtered by a lunatic tyrant, or how that tyrant came to a violent end.

[zappaman]

8. +1000

The hand-wringing over this fucker is saddening.

[whatchamacallit]

12. "leftists"

Give them enough rope...

[Ikonoklast]

31. People on the Intrawebs can pretend to be anything.

Especially if they want to hide behind calling themselves Leftists in order to bash Democrats non-stop on a website.

Rope, indeed.

[leftstreet]

25. So only leftists are 'wringing their hands?' Nice red baiting n/t

[Zorra]

86. No. By the 1940's Hitler had already long before killed or purged all

the leftists in Germany.

Hitler became chancellor on January 30th, 1933.

Basically, one of his first agendas was to systematically eliminate leftist opposition, often by having leftist leaders murdered.

So I seriously doubt that any leftists would have been complaining about someone taking Hitler out anytime after June 1933.

[NightWatcher]

9. I would've loved to go back and give Prescot Bush's dad a kick in the sack.

Three birds, one stone.

[elehhhhna]

14. plus a billion

[Bake]

15. I'd get in line for that, too!

:hi:

Bake

[AngryOldDem]

106. +1

:thumbsup:

[trotsky]

108. Don't you mean "Three birds, two stones"?

;-)

[Abin Sur]

10. In the 1940s? Absolutely. Easy choice. Let's make it a little trickier...

You time travel back to 1895. There, in the municipality of Fischlham, Austria, is little Adolph, an adorable tot of 6 years playing cowboys and indians (as per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolph_hitler#Childhood).

All the other children wander away. There's no one around. You *will* get away with anything you want to do to him.

This is your only chance...you can't do it at any other time in his life (because it's my scenario and I say so, that's why).

Do you strangle the future murderer of millions?

[zappaman]

13. actually

I would have strangled him in the womb if I could have.
One shitty man weighed against millions of innocent human beings?
No question.

[elehhhhna]

17. no. he's a child!

I'll give him hotdogs until he chokes.

geez, people - have a heart

[Bake]

18. Knowing what we know now? Sure. I'd strangle the little fucker.

Bake

[RagAss]

19. I would give him an LSD laced chocolate bar. It would have changed him for the better....

If it didn't....I'd come back when he was 20 and kill his ass !

[Ohio Joe]

29. Without a moments hesitation

Send me back to when he was in his crib and I'd do the same.

[0rganism]

35. let's try another imagination game... live capture of Hitler in 1945

Sherman, set the wayback machine to April 30, 1945. In this version of reality Hitler's pistol misfires, his suicide attempt fails, and he's captured by a (Soviet) squad of which you are a member. Do you execute him immediately, or take him prisoner to await trial and eventual execution at Nuremberg? What about Eva Braun?

What happened to Gaddafi sure looked like post-capture summary execution. Perhaps killing him was justified, but that doesn't mean the way it was carried out was optimal.

[Abin Sur]

43. I imagine that Stalin would have *loved* to capture Hitler.

Given that, I would capture Hitler alive rather than kill him. I know I'll be a Hero of the Soviet Union if I hand over a live Hitler over to Stalin. If I deny the chance for Uncle Joe to amuse himself at Hitler's expense because I was a little trigger-happy, it may not turn out so well for me.

[0rganism]

78. sure, but let's posit Stalin will send Hitler to Nuremberg for trial

Since we've already supposed time travel, for the sake of this thought experiment we can imagine a relatively benevolent Stalin, who will take into account the fact that your squad found Hitler's bunker, unknowingly, and from a distance Hitler looked like another armed Nazi officer.

In other words, you have free hand -- you can capture Hitler alive, and alternate Uncle Joe will send him to Nuremberg as a defendant, or you can kill him immediately, yourself. As an added permutation, let's suppose you lead the squad -- you can hand Hitler over to your squaddies and they'll kill him for you, no blood on your hands.

[Abin Sur]

84. I kill him personally, then.

I'm not willing to take the risk that something will go wrong. At the time I encounter Hitler, I have no way of knowing for sure that he'll be successfully transferred to the proper authorities. My squad might be ambushed by some holdout SS...who knows?

So I empty my PPsh-41 into him. 71 rounds of 7.62x25 ought to do the trick nicely.

[former9thward]

47. Killing the 6 year old Hitler would have meant nothing.

Hitler got his position because of the circumstances in Germany in the 1920s and early 30s. If Hitler was not around someone else would have been thrust in that position with the same politics. Nothing would have changed.

[Abin Sur]

56. I don't think The Holocaust was historically inevitable without Hitler.

Without Hitler, a right-wing dictatorship is the '30s is still likely, granted...but that doesn't mean whoever takes his place would create concentration camps, attack Poland, etc. Things would have been *different*.

[Exilednight]

100. No they wouldn't. The German ire against Jews was there before Hitler. Hitler bought into

the propaganda. History has taught us that it wasn't Hitler alone that came up with the final solution, others who thought the same way had come up with the same solution. In order for genocide to work, it has to be a mass hatred.

[Bragi]

127. I disagree

Much of western world openly hated and discriminated against Jews throughout history. Germany was no exception. However, the Holocaust was a particularly German-inspired and managed phenomenon.

My reading on the subject causes me to conclude that it happened in Germany because of Hitler, who was uniquely hate-fueled and also a brilliant political tactician who was able to seize and keep total control over his country.

This conclusion does not mean, of course, that genocide cannot ever happen again. Given the right circumstances, and the emergence of the right kind of person to seize control, genocide can (and does) happen again.

[Ter]

132. No, I'd put him in a different family

Raised right, in a different country, he never grows up to be top Nazi.

[KoKo]

16. Bake...you know the truth..You are doing hyperbole... Ghadaffi was NO Hitler..

and "get over yourself."

You are missing the mark with this post of the people you are trying to make "a point" to.

:-( Bad Call.

[Bake]

21. I'm not comparing Qaddafi to Hitler.

The handwringing over Qaddafi did get me thinking, however. I took an ethics class in the seminary years ago where the question in my OP was discussed.

So is Hitler a special case? If you'd do it to him, isn't it just a bit disingenuous to clutch the pearls over Qaddafi?

And ask the Libyans if THEY'D compare Qaddafi to Hitler ...

This is a discussion forum. I raised a question for discussion. So no, I don't think there's anything for me to "get over." Myself or otherwise.

Bake

[CTyankee]

20. Knowing of his evil designs, YES! Gladly!

Are we kidding anybody? Of course! THINK of the people he ended up killing!

[AngkorWot]

22. I enjoy the fact that he committed suicide.

He thought he was the top of a master race that would last a thousands years. He got to see it all crumble, and because of him. The last thing he realized was that the only thing he was supreme at was failing.

But yeah, I would have been happy to shoot him.

[Bake]

23. So we're pretty much agreed that Hitler deserved killing.

No trial necessary, just do it.

So the next question is this: how evil does somebody have to BE to deserve that treatment? Is Hitler a special case? Or do you extend it to people like Qaddafi?

Bake

[defendandprotect]

24. Gaddafi was reported killed by his bodyguard -- presumably on instructions if captured?

Being in a state of war vs Hitler what would be the difference between an American citizen

kill Hitler or one of our troops?

Meanwhile, are we even sure that Hitler did die in the bunker?

[Warren DeMontague]

27. Hitler was killed when a Klieg light fell on him at Area 51

during the filming of the 'moon landings', wink wink nudge nudge.

[zappaman]

39. No, he wasn't

he was killed in the WTC.
He had an office there, but the government was nervous he would talk and that's why our government took down the towers!
:crazy:

[dbt]

71. How long ago did it stop bothering you

when people quit taking your bait? Just curious.

:evilgrin:

[Historic NY]

26. Should have been sooner.....but he got his assassins.

[nadinbrzezinski]

28. Since time travel is not in the books

Personally I'd rather have him in front of a court of law...and yes my dad RIP was one of his direct victims.

[0rganism]

30. Gaddafi was *executed*, not *assasinated* -- I think that's important

Assassination can kill a tyrant at the height of his/her power.

Executions kill people who are already under control of the executioner.

Apologists for Gaddafi's killers don't seem to think a trial would have been useful. Nor did "suspected loyalists" receive much in the way of due process.

Such is often the way of revolution -- reprisals tend to be swift and extra-judicial. It's understandable, but I still find it ugly.

With respect to the Hitler question, I would have preferred an assassination in the run-up to the invasion of Poland -- of course, that's not the '40s. Anytime after that, sure, I'd have killed him on sight unless there was a better option. Let us suppose, for a moment, hypothetically, that Hitler's pistol misfired when he tried to kill himself in 1945 and he ended up captured by the allies. I would have far preferred to see him tried, convicted and executed at Nuremberg than executed on the spot by victorious soldiers.

[Bake]

38. I quite agree with the Nuremberg scenario! I'd like to have seen him hung.

As to "assassinate" vs. "execute," well, dead is dead.

Bake

[0rganism]

75. everyone dies eventually, but how we get there matters

Humane and just treatment of even the most evil captives brings honor to the victors. In the case of Gaddafi, an opportunity was lost for Libya's rebels to show the world that their methods were a step above Gaddafi's.

[joshcryer]

42. So I suppose you were against all of the regicide over the centuries?

I do think a trial would've been useful and I've said from day one it'd be better if he was caught alive. I never expected it, mind you, because this is war, and when push comes to shove the masses will decapitate their kings, that is just historical precedent. But I did want him alive and the interim government in Libya wanted him alive to stand trial, that's a fact.

[0rganism]

73. all of it? i don't know about that, but some of it, yes

And what became of the offspring of said royalty was often shameful.

Sure the kings of old did cruel things, evil things, and justice was generally whatever they said it was. But that doesn't magically exonerate their killers.

[joshcryer]

77. I'm just saying, it was pretty much an expected outcome.

Unfortunate though it may have been.

[0rganism]

79. Right -- expected, but suboptimal

History is fraught with expected suboptimality.

[joshcryer]

80. As I said, I felt elated that he was captured, numb that he was killed.

Definitely agree it was suboptimal.

[sabrina 1]

32. Wow, I've seen some crazy stuff here today, but to compare

this situation to Hitler?? You ARE getting desperate.

Btw, how many countries did Gadaffi invade??

What did Gadaffi do to the US?

And please be more clear about this comparison.

Since you are not so subtly accusing DUers and probably the vast majority of people around the world, who oppose the US' interference in foreign, oil rich nations, of being the kind of people who would have supported Hitler (this was a rightwing claim regarding the left during the Bush administration btw, in case you didn't know) I think you need to make it clear how Gadaffi compares in even the remotest way to Hitler. If I am going to be called a 'Hitler Sympathizer' (isn't this against DU rules btw?) I would like the accuser to be more clear.

And don't forget that Obama, Bush, Hillary, Condi et al all supported this 'hitler' so long as he was playing along. Because he didn't change much over the past ten years. Would they have supported Hitler also?

I will check back for your clarification later.

[Bake]

37. Show me where I compare Q to H.

I just raised an ethical question for discussion. If you don't want to discuss, don't.

Yes, there are some parallels between the two, but I'll leave those for others to draw.

Personally, I'm not losing any sleep over Qaddafi. He got what tyrants often get.

Bake

[sabrina 1]

49. I don't see a single parallel. You post ed an OP

I asked some questions.

A couple of answers to a couple of those questions would have been nice though such as:

What countries did Gadaffi invade?

What threat was Gadaffi to the US that would justify our involvement in that war, which is likely to go on now for years?

And another one. Why is this administration carrying out the plans of the Bush Neocons? Libya was on their list of seven countries to invade in case you did not know that. How many more to go and will you support all of them? There are lots of bad guys in the world, we support a lot of them. Gadaffi, on a dictator scale of 1-10 was probably around a 3. He actually was 'loved' by a good portion of the Libyan population, much as that fact is denied here in the West.

We are currently supporting some dictators who are nearer to the 10 range. Should we go to war with all of our current 'friendly dictators'?

If bad guys are the problem, shouldn't we be advocating taking out Karamov? People are confused, we seem to be selective when it comes to bad guys. I don't support this war, I didn't support Iraq or Afghanistan. I knew we were lied to, I know we are being lied to now, and I know we will continue to be lied when it comes to the MIC, the Neocons and their wars. Sorry if that offends you.

[joshcryer]

45. Gaddafi invaded several African countries, but you've been informed of this over and over again.

So I don't expect it to stick this time.

[AngryOldDem]

105. As well as orchestrated the deaths of thousands...

...including a bunch of kids from Syracuse University and GIs partying at a disco.

But let's not pick nits.

[demosincebirth]

33. I would have liked to see him at Nuerumberg tried by esteemed and

renowned Judges of Jewish ancestry.

[randome]

34. Is this a Dr. Who reference.

Because I really detested that episode. Moffatt screwed up big time.

[CTyankee]

36. I would hope I could kill him before he started getting traction with his anti-semitic tirades,

but at least as soon as they became a danger to the jews...i would like to think i could save a lot of jew's lives could have been saved in those days...but...

[joshcryer]

40. People tried, they failed, unfortunately. He was one lucky son of a bitch.

There were at least two occasions where he should've died.

One was when a guy brought a briefcase with explosives to the room Hitler was in. Hitler was in just the right spot not to die from the explosion (Mythbusters even did a show on this).

Another was when a carpenter spent weeks setting up an explosive underneath one of Hitler's speaking places, and he set the timer to go off. Hitler was unusually tired that day and didn't give a long enough speech. He shouldn't died then, too.

There were other attempts but those were the two that should've killed him.

[polly7]

41. Personally, I'd have liked to see him captured or assassinated in

1933 when he set up his first concentration camp at Dachau.

[yawnmaster]

44. There would be no guarantee that you are in the proper timeline. eom

[LynneSin]

46. To kill one to possibly save millions yeah

probably

[rug]

48. No. BTW the consensus at the time was not to assassinate him.

They were counting on his blounders to shorten the war.

[Pyrzqxgl]

50. I'm A Pacifist. I couldn't take a life. Not even Hitlers.

I can't say that I would be sorry to see him or any other dictator out of any situation of power, but I
couldn't be responsible for the death of anyone. That's why the death penalty bothers me so much because
that makes the state responsible for a death & I am part of the state. I can't see how these super Christians
can be so pro death. THE ten Commandments big one would seem to condemn anyone who is pro death by the state
to hell.

[Bake]

103. So you'd let six million+ die because you can't pull the trigger on one monster?

I could pull that trigger.

But that's just me.

:hi:

Bake

[snooper2]

111. It goes back to that "every life is valuable" "every life is special" crap

:eyes:

[Warren DeMontague]

51. yes.

[former9thward]

53. Interesting the Allies made no serious attempt to kill Hitler.

Hitler spent much of the war at the Wolf's Lair in present day Poland. The Allies knew that but made no attempt to bomb the area.

[Darth_Kitten]

54. Yup.

If I had the opportunity, of course.

[MoonRiver]

55. Yes.

[pintobean]

57. Dr. Sam Weizak: I don't like this, John. What are you getting at?

Johnny Smith: What would you do? Would you kill him?

Dr. Sam Weizak: All right. All right. I'll give you an answer. I'm a man of medicine. I'm expected to save lives and ease suffering. I love people. Therefore, I would have no choice but to kill the son of a bitch.

Johnny Smith: You'd never get away alive.

Dr. Sam Weizak: It doesn't matter. I would kill him.

[Cleita]

58. Firstly, our nation didn't go around assassinating dictators back then.

If we had gotten to Berlin first and captured Hitler alive, he would have been tried at Nuremberg. Since the Russians were closing in on him, he committed suicide rather than let them take him alive. It might have been a different story if the Allies had reached Berlin first. German soldiers ran to the west when Germany collapsed because they preferred being taken prisoner by the Americans rather than by the Russians who would have tortured them to death. We had a reputation for playing by the rules, the Geneva conventions et al and trying to do the right thing. (Things have really changed.)

I personally think that putting these monsters on trial and having to face the stories of their victims and their families before they are sentenced would be not only just but much harder for them than just dying and also would reveal a lot of information about their regimes as well as outing other bad guys in the regime who could get away scot free. Killing them only gives them a short time of pain and as far as I'm concerned doesn't serve justice in the long run. Killing them like we enabled the killing of Saddam just puts a stain on our national character that won't wash off.

[saras]

59. It would not have been a good thing, though billions of times less bad than what he did.

Killing him would have been a quite reasonable compromise between an ideal world in which we never have to do anything less than perfect, and the profound difference in probable outcomes had he or had he not created the Nazi state.

Whether I would hesitate before killing him would depend on whether the killing opportunity offered me time to hesitate or not.

[Bake]

60. By the way, I have to credit DinahMoeHum for the "ignoble end" reference!

The Eisenhower quote about the execution of Mussolini. Thanks, DMH!

:hi:

Bake

[TBF]

61. You're missing the point. Are we systematically looking at every country and deciding whether

there is a dictator that should be killed? Or are we simply making it easier to get to resources we want? Further, do we have any right to go around killing leaders of other countries?

[Fire Walk With Me]

62. Someone smart would have taken over and caused more trouble than Hitler did.

[nadinbrzezinski]

63. You know I actually got a chance

To play judge, jury and all that with a real bad character. Instead I took care of medical needs and he went to jail...

No, not hitler bad...just bad. As in killed or was indirectly responsible for Te death of thousands. I am glad I made the moral choice to be honest. These fantasies are sickening because this is not a video game.

Thanks for reminding me of that.

[ncteechur]

64. Shot him, skewered him, cut his head off, and pissed on his grave.

[Paladin]

65. In A Heartbeat. (n/t)

[markpkessinger]

66. Unless any of us here actually lived throught it, no one can really say...

... I don't think any of us can be certain of what we would or would not have done. Most of us, I suspect, would like to believe we would have acted. But we have benefit of hindsight, and we are not currently living with and under the horrors of the Third Reich.

And no, I don't think even you, Bake, "know where you come down on it." I think you know where you would like to believe you would have come down on it.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

67. Wouild that solution(?) apply to every "leader" who is responsible for the deaths of people?

That's a long list of possible candidates for assassination you're advocating.

[JVS]

68. If you had killed him in late 1940, Germany would probably be constantly on the brink...

of fascism. And I'm not talking about this nearly 5% bullshit for the NPD and so on, I'm talking about a political culture like here in America where extreme militarism, the gross violation of human rights, bigotry, and hatred are the norm.

[hyphenate]

69. Well, as I said in a thread earlier

What would have stopped us from just killing all the world dictators? Why stop with Hitler? Stalin? Hirohito? Mao? Pol Pot? Franco? Moussilini?

No matter what the time period, there are going to be dictators who kill innocents. It wasn't until we could perform surgical kills that the idea of eliminating every tyrant has been in the public imagination. Warfare exists right now because it's profitable to someone.

If we eliminated all the "bad" guys, we could conceivably go back to ancient Rome (or even earlier) and kill Julius Caesar or Nero. We can't forget Cleopatra (that bitch!) or Pontius Pilate, or another despot. We would change history very dramatically, but do we have the right to do so? And what would the world look like today if we did change things?

It's one thing to stop such a regime from getting worse, but going back and killing someone before they've begun? At that point, when they haven't done something. they would still be considered "innocents" themselves. We can't change history, and if we could, we shouldn't. We are shaped by history--the history of our world, and need to look forward to changing things for the future. If we can do that, those who have died before us will not have died in vain.

We always try to look at life as precious, but in the eyes of many, one person's life is simply a number. Cannon fodder. Pawns. That's never going to change unless we choose to honor those already gone for their sacrifice. Once a person is given a name, they become a human being. Amd as we all know, this was something the last US regime didn't want us to remember--banning photos of flag covered coffins returning to the country only made that more stark.

[McCamy Taylor]

72. In the 40s? For sure. He was a mass murderer. But not when he was a child.

That is the ethical question. If I had a time machine, I would snatch baby Hitler from his abusive dad and bring him to America and find him a nice, happy family. He would have grown up a different man.

[hunter]

74. Without Hitler, Germany develops the first nuclear weapons...

... and the U.S.A., Japan, and the Soviet Union, knowing it's possible after witnessing the atomic bombing of London, soon follow.

If you thought World War II sucked, alternate history World War II with thousands of nuclear weapons built fast and furious using leaky, hastily constructed plutonium production reactors .... well that sucks worse.

Truth is we don't know if killing Hitler would have improved the situation. It's just as likely it would have made the situation worse. Maybe having a criminally insane drug addicted megalomaniac as a leader greatly handicapped the Nazis.

I don't think any one man changes history. If one leader is removed, another will take his place -- maybe for better, maybe for worse.

Qaddafi lost everything he was weeks ago. His actual death is a footnote.

[Abin Sur]

85. If, as you say, history can be made better or worse by replacing an individual

then one man *does* change history, by definition. As for alternate histories where Hitler isn't in charge of Germany, your point is well taken. What happens with Hitler in charge is a known quantity. Even with all of today's problems, at least we do live in a world where Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union lost.

It could be a lot worse.

[Bake]

102. One man doesn't change history?

I've got one for you: Martin Luther King, Jr.

Without him, many many many of our brothers and sisters are still using separate restroom, water fountains, and riding on the back of the bus. Just for starters.

:hi:

Bake

[Douglas Carpenter]

112. If Thomas Edison had never been born, would we all still be reading by candle light and lanterns?

Probably not. If George Washington had never been born, would there still have been American independence? If Abraham Lincoln had never been born, would slavery still have been abolished more or less around the same time? I would have to say most likely to all of those. So, yes history created the need and the conditions for great figures and great figures came on the scene.

[yawnmaster]

133. you don't know that. eom

[tawadi]

76. Yes. eom

[cliffordu]

81. Yep - with my bare hands, a knife or

a fucking Runcible Spoon,

I'd a done him in a hot second.

[bengalherder]

82. Frankly I would go back to the 20's and buy his paintings

I think that would have changed things in a more positive way.

[Modern_Matthew]

83. No. I never sit around thinking about killing people. nt

[Motown_Johnny]

87. What if you could have killed his mother before he was born?

Would you take her (innocent?) life for the greater good?

[Luciferous]

89. Yes.

[applegrove]

90. Yes.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

91. Hell yes.

[sakabatou]

93. Fuck yes.

[pinboy3niner]

94. If you had the opportunity to kill the OP before he posted this...

:evilgrin:

[Bake]

104. I'm sure there are some here who would.

Fortunately, they don't konw where I live.

All I did was raise a hypothetical question of ethics.

Read "Situation Ethics." And read Bonhoeffer's "Letter From Prison." Even Karl Barth was part of the discussions about killing Hitler.

Bake

[MrScorpio]

96. Hitler not making it out of WWI would have been more preferable

As well as the post war austerity measures on Germany not being as oppressive, which fueled much of the German population's resentment going in to WWII

Hitler's fanaticism was the match the lit that fuel.

[Warren DeMontague]

98. the 40s really would have been closing the barn door after the horse was out

especially if you had a time machine.

[Tsiyu]

99. Doesn't answer the question

But wasn't Gaddafi killed by crossfire, according to the latest stories?

As to Hitler? Well, I have a respect for human life but could kill to defend innocents.

Like, I would have killed DeSoto and the violent Spaniards, Custer, if given the chance, and a lot of other Indian killers. I'll admit that. And I damn straight would have killed Hitler.

Just like if you try to break in my house to do physical harm to me or mine, expect to die. I'm not a liberterian who would shoot you over a lawnmower, or if I caught you stealing, but try to horribly hurt someone here and I would put you out of your misery.

I hate to say it about myself, and I'm not pissing on Qaddafi's grave, but there it is.

[raccoon]

107. Hitler didn't invent anti-semiticism. He didn't do the Holocaust by himself.

He had plenty of willing helpers. There was already a lot of anti-semiticism around then.

This goes back to the question of "Does history make great men, or do great men make history?"

IMO, if Hitler had never been born, someone else would do pretty much what he did.

[Rebubula]

114. Agree

He was just the one that made it to the top...climbing over the dead to get there.

[slackmaster]

109. The Grandfather Paradox, or Edith Keeler must die

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CeNZ7hKlLZQ

[Douglas Carpenter]

110. a genocidal leader of a super power on the verge of world domination is not a realistic comparison

to some tinhorn third world dictator. A simple review of independent human rights organizations from around the world will show that there are lots and lots of them - some of them not quite as bad as Qaddafi, some about as bad and many even worse. But the decision by western governments to try to kill Qadaffi or any other tinhorn despot who upsets western governments for whatever reason can hardly be compared to the soul searching of the great German Evangelical theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer who prayed and meditated for days before proclaiming, "Jesus Christ is my conscience" and then committing himself to do whatever he could do to assist in the assassination of Adolph Hitler.

[Rebubula]

113. The Problem with this...

...is that Hitler was not the only one espoused these ideals in the 30s.

There were many other people preaching the same thing as Hitler - he purged them on his ascent to power.

If you killed Hitler - there would still have been a Nazi (different name, different methods) party that would do anything to erase the stain of WWI from the minds of Germans.



Now...killing Ted Bundy, John Wayne Gacy, Andrei Chikatilo or any other of the individuals that spread their hatred\violence one person at a time...then FUCK yes I would go and strangle them in the womb if need be.

[rdking647]

115. no doubt in my mind.. 2 shots to the back of his head

[ThomWV]

117. Sure, in fact I would have been drafted and ordered to do it.

Back in the 40's we went to war with Germany.

[LanternWaste]

118. Without absolute knowledge of the relevant consequences of any one person's death

Without absolute knowledge of the relevant consequences of any one person's death (would he have been replaced by someone more or less detrimental?), the precise social cost/benefit outcome of that death, and an objective perspective of what we ourselves believe to be "good" and "evil", the exercise becomes little more than a self-serving contest to see who can piss furthest in the dark.

I don't pretend to know-- you, however, do. :shrug:

[spin]

119. +1000 (n/t)

[Lydia Leftcoast]

121. I'd put him on trial with the rest of the Nazis

The failed plot to kill him with a suitcase bomb was instituted by Germans, not by outsiders.

[mrs_p]

122. I don't know if I have it in me to kill anyone

Maybe in the heat of the moment - like someone taking my baby.

[DevonRex]

125. I would have done it quite happily. No doubt, no regret. Nt

[Iggo]

126. Godwin in 1.

[Ter]

Way too late

How's about 1917?

[Ter]

131. Way too late

How's about 1917?

[elana i am]

138. nope. i'd be a hypocrite if i said i would.

i have and always have had every intention of living my whole life without killing another human being. ever. kill or be killed doesn't work on me because i'd rather die than live having knowingly taken another life.

no war, no assasination, no murder, no death penalty. if one is wrong, they're all wrong.

the only concession i make toward taking another life is being pro-choice, but i have my limits, as i imagine most of us do.

ETA: BTW i would consider death for hitler the easy way out. he was a psychopath incapable of empathy and remorse, but living the entire rest of his life in solitary confinement being treated like a plague on humanity might have made him suffer, even if it was only self-pity.

[RebelOne]

139. No, because I was just a child at that time. n/t

[oldlib]

140. I hated Japs and Nazis at that time!

As a child, of 8 years to 12 years, during the WW2 period, I detested the Germans and Japanese and wanted them destroyed. It took many years to adjust to a more reasonable thought of those people.