Could you kill baby Hitler [Poll added]

[GYAAAL YA PUM PUM FAT!]

Be a baby killer so someone else can probably take his place in the future and do the same shyt he was gonna do or even worse, brehs

 

[JahFocus CS]

Would rather clap an infant Columbus

 

[mbewane]

Stupid on many accounts.

HItler wasn't "HItler" from birth, his environment made him into what he was. The pervading nationalism was present in ALL of Europe in that era, widespread anti-semitism since forever in Europe, and the fact Germany felt "humiliated" by the Versailles Treaty after WW1. And the idea that Germans were somewhat superior to other "races" was also well present.

Lest we forget Namibia was the first German genocide, well before Hitler was anywhere near power.

Hitler didn't invent shyt, he just put together various elements and "perfected" them.

This is in the direct line of acting like ONE man was responsible for all of that, because it's more reassuring to believe it was the work of one psychopath than to study the social and historical context that made him possible. And lest we forget that Hitler had no problems finding allies in other european countries.

And lest we forget Mussolini is the one who invented fascim, not Hitler.

 

[88m3]

Does your hatred of Jews outweigh your desire to see the rapid advance of society, Brehs?

 

[tru_m.a.c]

Stupid on many accounts.

HItler wasn't "HItler" from birth, his environment made him into what he was. The pervading nationalism was present in ALL of Europe in that era, widespread anti-semitism since forever in Europe, and the fact Germany felt "humiliated" by the Versailles Treaty after WW1. And the idea that Germans were somewhat superior to other "races" was also well present.

Lest we forget Namibia was the first German genocide, well before Hitler was anywhere near power.

Hitler didn't invent shyt, he just put together various elements and "perfected" them.

This is in the direct line of acting like ONE man was responsible for all of that, because it's more reassuring to believe it was the work of one psychopath than to study the social and historical context that made him possible. And lest we forget that Hitler had no problems finding allies in other european countries.

And lest we forget Mussolini is the one who invented fascim, not Hitler.

So is your answer no because he's a baby, or no because you're against killing?

 

[EndDomination]

I'd kill baby Leopold II, Pol Pot and Hitler.

 

[Oroko Saki]

Nahh Id just wait til he gets older and take him in back of a shed

 

[KingFreeman]

Ok but the poll isn't asking you if you think killing Hitler would stop Germans from seeking revenge for the Treaty of Versailles. It's asking you, if given the chance, would you kill Hitler before he could experience childhood?

If your answer is still no, that's fine. But I think your answer that "one man isn't responsible for a whole country" is a lame cop out to seem morally righteous. I don't think you believe that, given your beliefs toward other moral atrocities that personally affected your ancestors (pure conjecture on my part of course).

Had you been alive during WW2, I doubt you would be on some, "We can't kill Hitler. He's only one man! He must be forced to surrender and brought in alive!"

Huh? Not sure what points you're trying to make here breh.

One man literally isn't responsible for a whole country. Unless mind-control got invented a long time ago and I didn't know. No cop out at all. Hitler would've been some random dude if Germany as a majority wasn't about that action. Same for any other leader.

And If I was alive during WW2 and I was some white american or something, killing Hitler still doesn't make a difference. Not like the whole Nazi regime is gonna topple at the height of their power by killing one dude like a videogame or something.

 

[mbewane]

So is your answer no because he's a baby, or no because you're against killing?

Both, but that's not my point.

My point is killing ONE person won't kill the context he grew up in. It won't kill Goebels, Himmler, Göring and all them. I repeat myself, but Nazi-like "zeigeist" was around well before Hitler.

 

[tru_m.a.c]

Both, but that's not my point.

My point is killing ONE person won't kill the context he grew up in. It won't kill Goebels, Himmler, Göring and all them. I repeat myself, but Nazi-like "zeigeist" was around well before Hitler.

Does this "killing one person won't kill the context" idea exist after the war starts too?

 

[mbewane]

Does this "killing one person won't kill the context" idea exist after the war starts too?

Before, during, after.

Listen, killing ONE man is a lazy intellectual shortcut that does not take into account historical, political and sociological realities of that era. The rise of Hitler was no "fluke" or "surprise", nor was the fact that Nazis had no problem whatsoever finding allies in Europe (including in non-Axis countries : Belgium, Netherlands, France, etc).

If you have the oportunity visit the Jewish Museum in Berlin, it explains very clearly how and why anti-semitism was widespread in Europe centuries before Hitler/Nazis, and how Germany (and other European countries) had anti-semitic laws/policies before 1933.

Hitler was the product of his environment and he had the political maneuvers to use it to rise to the top. Nationalism was extremely high in that era in Europe, WW1 was a mere 20 years before, Balkans were a mess, Spain too, Ottoman Empire...there was A LOT going on in that era. Killing one man doesn't change that.

 

[tru_m.a.c]

Huh? Not sure what points you're trying to make here breh.

One man literally isn't responsible for a whole country. Unless mind-control got invented a long time ago and I didn't know. No cop out at all.

Your answer to the questions below will illustrate my point......

Hitler would've been some random dude if Germany as a majority wasn't about that action. Same for any other leader.

1. Is this how you feel about any other human atrocity that has personally affected your gene pool?

And If I was alive during WW2 and I was some white american or something, killing Hitler still doesn't make a difference. Not like the whole Nazi regime is gonna topple at the height of their power by killing one dude like a videogame or something.

2. If the question didn't say "kill" and it said "stopped" would your answer change? If so why? This idea that "Hitler was just one man" sounds like the moral equivalent of the Munich Agreement.

 

[tru_m.a.c]

Before, during, after.

Listen, killing ONE man is a lazy intellectual shortcut that does not take into account historical, political and sociological realities of that era. The rise of Hitler was no "fluke" or "surprise", nor was the fact that Nazis had no problem whatsoever finding allies in Europe (including in non-Axis countries : Belgium, Netherlands, France, etc).

If you have the oportunity visit the Jewish Museum in Berlin, it explains very clearly how and why anti-semitism was widespread in Europe centuries before Hitler/Nazis, and how Germany (and other European countries) had anti-semitic laws/policies before 1933.

Hitler was the product of his environment and he had the political maneuvers to use it to rise to the top. Nationalism was extremely high in that era in Europe, WW1 was a mere 20 years before, Balkans were a mess, Spain too, Ottoman Empire...there was A LOT going on in that era. Killing one man doesn't change that.

We're using a time machine to travel back into the past to change the present, and you're talking about historical, political and sociological realities

 

[mbewane]

We're using a time machine to travel back into the past to change the present, and you're talking about historical, political and sociological realities

Breh, it's not rocket science. Killing ONE man doesn't change pre WW2 Europe.

Again, thinking it would is intellectually lazy and a shortcut precisely not to take into account what allowed Hitler to develop his political thinking, rally people around him and ultimately take power and do what he did.

As long as you keep dodging the historical context, there is no point really discussing this

 

[Tate]

No space program

no iPhones

no american hegemony

Upholding your record of terrible and illogical posting here.

Would rather clap an infant Columbus

Columbus was just the first, Europeans were bound to discover the new world and I doubt pushing the date of discovery back 30-100 years would have changed anything.

Stupid on many accounts.

HItler wasn't "HItler" from birth, his environment made him into what he was. The pervading nationalism was present in ALL of Europe in that era, widespread anti-semitism since forever in Europe, and the fact Germany felt "humiliated" by the Versailles Treaty after WW1. And the idea that Germans were somewhat superior to other "races" was also well present.

Lest we forget Namibia was the first German genocide, well before Hitler was anywhere near power.

Hitler didn't invent shyt, he just put together various elements and "perfected" them.

This is in the direct line of acting like ONE man was responsible for all of that, because it's more reassuring to believe it was the work of one psychopath than to study the social and historical context that made him possible. And lest we forget that Hitler had no problems finding allies in other european countries.

And lest we forget Mussolini is the one who invented fascim, not Hitler.

Great post.