Could you kill baby Hitler [Poll added]

[tru_m.a.c]

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

I'm not dodging the historical context. I actually agree with your breakdown of the events that precluded Hitlers rise. We're in total agreement there, I just didn't want to dap you

Edit: But my problem when people start bringing up context in this situation, is that they're forgetting that this question is a fukkn fantasy. So bringing up "realities" doesn't make sense considering the fact that this question is based on a hypothetical situation - involving time travel. What makes your hypothetical situation that "it wouldn't change anything because hitler is one man" any more credible than any other hypothetical situation that it would in fact change things?

It's a thought experiment that should really only come down to a) are you against murder b) are you against murdering children c) do you believe that you have in no way directly or indirectly contributed to murder or the murder of children d) if Hitler is exchanged with *insert perpetrator of american slavery* how would the voters reaction change e) If the word kill is changed to stop, will voters still vehemently argue that the act is/was inevitable?

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

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.

it kinda does though.

Europe remains fukked up and on the brink of war regardless...but the outcomes are far harder to predict. Its the most defining series of events in human history.

 

[ORDER_66]

So in other words, "I thank God for killing 30 million soviets, 7 million Germans, 6 million Jews, 600k Frenchmen, and 400k Americans, so that I could live to post on the coli."

Altering the time stream is no fukking joke tho... Haven't you watched like BTTF, butterfly effect, 12 monkeys, continuum, farscape, Looper, Terminator series?

 

[JahFocus CS]

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.

I agree, but I would still like to do it.

 

[KingFreeman]

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



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



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.

1. Umm... yeah. If you're trying to talk about the slave trade, white supremacy or something similar. One man wasn't responsible for any of those either. Like I keep saying, its not magic.

2. Yeah... I'm about to

this thread homes. 'Stopping' Adolf from being leader still changes little when it comes to 1943 ish Nazi Germany.

 

[mbewane]

I'm not dodging the historical context. I actually agree with your breakdown of the events that precluded Hitlers rise. We're in total agreement there, I just didn't want to dap you

Edit: But my problem when people start bringing up context in this situation, is that they're forgetting that this question is a fukkn fantasy. So bringing up "realities" doesn't make sense considering the fact that this question is based on a hypothetical situation - involving time travel. What makes your hypothetical situation that "it wouldn't change anything because hitler is one man" any more credible than any other hypothetical situation that it would in fact change things?

It's a thought experiment that should really only come down to a) are you against murder b) are you against murdering children c) do you believe that you have in no way directly or indirectly contributed to murder or the murder of children d) if Hitler is exchanged with *insert perpetrator of american slavery* how would the voters reaction change e) If the word kill is changed to stop, will voters still vehemently argue that the act is/was inevitable?

Got me

Ok yeah my whole answer is indeed based on the interpretation of "Would you kil baby Hitler KNOWING WHAT HE DID AFTER", to which I answer no because the hypothetical question ("Would you kill baby Hitler") does NOT adress anything else. Meaning, the ONLY thing that changed in that historical context is that Hitler does not exist. I argue that in the grand scheme of things, killing baby HItler does not change that much, because he is the product of his environment. Thus, if you don't change the environment, killing baby Hitler or not doesn't make that much of a difference.

The things that led to Hitler's rise

- Nationalism
- Antisemitism
-"Scientific" racism (these three points were everywhere in Europe)
- Pangermanism
- German thirst for revenge post Versailles Treaty
- German historical "continental" colonialism (as opposed to France's, GB's and Netherland's "overseas" colonialism)
- German's conception of nationality ("by way of blood" meaning is German who is born of German parents, as opposed to "by way of land" as in France, meaning is French who is born on French soil)

all pervade Hitler and Nazis.

it kinda does though.

Europe remains fukked up and on the brink of war regardless...but the outcomes are far harder to predict. Its the most defining series of events in human history.

This I agree with. But given what I wrote above, I'm pretty sure WW2 breaks out some way or another and Germany is at the center of it. Indeed the outcomes are harder to predict though, but Germany had already accepted "scientific racism", was antisemitic, was vengeful against the rest of Europe, and had experimented the "success" of genocide before Hitler.

Interestingly, French critics of the Versailles Treaty precisely felt that it was too hard on Germany and would lead to another war.

There's a reason that after WW2, in which Germany caused way more damage than in WW2, the country was not as humiliated as it was after WW1.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

This I agree with. But given what I wrote above, I'm pretty sure WW2 breaks out some way or another and Germany is at the center of it. Indeed the outcomes are harder to predict though, but Germany had already accepted "scientific racism", was antisemitic, was vengeful against the rest of Europe, and had experimented the "success" of genocide before Hitler.

Interestingly, French critics of the Versailles Treaty precisely felt that it was too hard on Germany and would lead to another war.

There's a reason that after WW2, in which Germany caused way more damage than in WW2, the country was not as humiliated as it was after WW1.

You gotta remember, the world was just too disconnected before WW2.

There was everyone literally fighting anyone who were their neighbors and trying to eek out their own existence.

Globalization has eliminated most of the need for this.

 

[newarkhiphop]

Poll is for many reasons, I've always believed that most non psycho non millitary trained people couldn't kill someone else even if there life is in danger, never mind killing a baby

 

[Liu Kang]

So in other words, "I thank God for killing 30 million soviets, 7 million Germans, 6 million Jews, 600k Frenchmen, and 400k Americans, so that I could live to post on the coli."

Not at all. It's more "Hitler got to live, impacted History the way he did and I'm here". But nice post, got a few daps from it too

Objectively, killing Hitler would be pointless because he was more of a catalyst than anything else. Antisemitism, fascism, the Franco-German hate etc. were already there and he was simply the match that lighted it up. There is no proof that killing him would have stopped the Holocaust (though, there is no proof that it wouldn't have either of course). I know Hitler is the boogeyman of the 20th century but he's not the only boogeyman that has ever lived in Human history. Why stopping at Hitler ? Why not Napoleon ? Why not Hannibal ? Genghis Khan ? Alexander the Great ? Attila ? History has seen and will always see conquerors/generals who kill/ed millions whatever their ideology was/is/will be and regardless of the legitimacy of their cause (we are either on the bad or the good side of History and fortunately, we the West have been in on the good one in the 20th century)

And really, going back in time to kill Hitler is at best arbitrary and has little to no legitimacy. Realistically, it would even be unfair to every casualties that happened before him and that were caused by other "boogeymen" (let alone every little/regional/local conflicts and other less deadly events...). Seriously, how would one justify killing Hitler over Attila ? Over Genghis Khan ? And if you say "well, it's because he lived in the 20th Century". Well then, why not Pol Pot ? Why not Stalin ? Are the humans killed by Hitler/the Nazis and during WWII worth more than those killed in every other eras of History ? And even if the reason to kill Hitler is legit, how do you know that killing Hitler wouldn't have birthed an even more demonic person and resulting in a even bigger body count ?

Ultimately, what happened happened and that's why I said that out of selfishness, I wouldn't kill him. It may be cynical but there's no reason to change the past. We can only learn from it to avoid making the same mistakes. Mistakes that we will still make either way in the future, that's how Humanity is

 

[Consigliere]

No. History is filled with the acts of evil men. How many babies are we expected to murder to preserve fictional peace?

 

[ADevilYouKhow]

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

Pause...

 

[Renkz]

Don't think I could do it

 

[Futuristic Eskimo]

Nope for selfish reasons : it may prevent me from existing.

This. perfect answer.

 

[Amphibious]

His team killed a lot of cacs, so no.

 

[Tate]

Killing Hitler doesn't prevent WW2 in a sense that after Versailles you would have undoubtedly had a war to resolve the standing issues left unresolved in Europe. Not to mention the Japanese problem in the Far East. But it's important to not overlook the individual qualities of hitler as a man that made WW2 the conflict it was.

Hitler was a virulent anti-Semite even by the standards of the day. His charisma and ruthlessness were exceptional. Fascism is a philosophy of reaction but hitler shaped the nationalism of the period and the program of Mussolini into a world changing ideology.

WW2 happens without hitler, but I doubt the holocaust does to a comparable scale. I doubt you get the same death toll.

Really surprised no is winning here