Would you kill baby Hitler?

Polymathic

Honorary Master
Joined
Mar 22, 2010
Messages
14,533
Ain't life just filled with such moments.

You know the Arch Duke also almost died in a hunting accident just months before his assassination.

But like I said before, war was pretty imminent. "so many forces were at play, national rivalries, personal ambition, royal prestige, revolutionary ideals, it is hard to believe it could have been stopped"

Everyone was just waiting for a spark to ignite it all. And if not the one, there would have been another. Stopping princip would almost certainly just have slightly delayed the onset of the first world War.
The Arch Duke dying while hunting wouldn't be an international incident. WW1 wasn't inevitability, Britain wanted to stay out of it but Germany forced their hand by invading Belgium
 

MrsWestcot

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 12, 2018
Messages
152
The Arch Duke dying while hunting wouldn't be an international incident. WW1 wasn't inevitability, Britain wanted to stay out of it but Germany forced their hand by invading Belgium
Yes, hence the reason many argue it would have halted WW1, but WW1 was indeed inevitable, if you looked at all the factors. Stopping the assassination would likely not have prevented it. The invasion of Belgium was the start of WW2. And the invasion probably a direct result from the constraints the treaty of Versailles placed on Germany. Hence WW1 gave way to WW2, so it goes without saying that if you wanted to prevent Hitler (or WW2) you had to prevent WW1 from ever happening and stopping a single event would not have done it.
 

rambo919

Executive Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2008
Messages
5,403
WWI happened because of decades of empires comparing size measurements..... all that pride and national enthusiam was bound to lead to what happened one way or another.
 

Polymathic

Honorary Master
Joined
Mar 22, 2010
Messages
14,533
Yes, hence the reason many argue it would have halted WW1, but WW1 was indeed inevitable, if you looked at all the factors. Stopping the assassination would likely not have prevented it. The invasion of Belgium was the start of WW2. And the invasion probably a direct result from the constraints the treaty of Versailles placed on Germany. Hence WW1 gave way to WW2, so it goes without saying that if you wanted to prevent Hitler (or WW2) you had to prevent WW1 from ever happening and stopping a single event would not have done it.
Nope you mixed up , the start of World War 2 was the refusal of Germany to withdraw from Poland. In in WW1 the Germans wanted free passage for their troops through Belgium which the Belgians denied them, then Germany declared war on them.
FYI there were several key moments where that almost prevented WW1 from happening before it even started between the time of the Arch Dukes assassination and official declaration of war by Austrians on the Serbians
 

Lupus

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 25, 2006
Messages
16,898
Nope you mixed up , the start of World War 2 was the refusal of Germany to withdraw from Poland. In in WW1 the Germans wanted free passage for their troops through Belgium which the Belgians denied them, then Germany declared war on them.
FYI there were several key moments where that almost prevented WW1 from happening before it even started between the time of the Arch Dukes assassination and official declaration of war by Austrians on the Serbians
There's a reason it was a world war, there was a lot of tensions,a lot of aggression and it just pushed everyone to fight.
Stopping the Duke from being killed on that day would've maybe delayed it. But yeah it was a whole bunch of cousins basically having a family feud which ended up causing major issues.
 

Polymathic

Honorary Master
Joined
Mar 22, 2010
Messages
14,533
There's a reason it was a world war, there was a lot of tensions,a lot of aggression and it just pushed everyone to fight.
Stopping the Duke from being killed on that day would've maybe delayed it. But yeah it was a whole bunch of cousins basically having a family feud which ended up causing major issues.
They so inbred can you really call them cousins.
 

Moto Guzzi

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2004
Messages
722


This baby grows up to be responsible for the deaths of Around 6 million Jews; using broadest definition, 17 million victims overall.

The question is would you kill baby Hitler to save the lives of millions of people?

Your question has no merit to be honest.
Whats going on today make Hitler looks like a penny. Take drugs alone, no comparison the devastation it causes, and thats just one example. History starts to looking better and better.
 

MrsWestcot

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 12, 2018
Messages
152
Nope you mixed up , the start of World War 2 was the refusal of Germany to withdraw from Poland. In in WW1 the Germans wanted free passage for their troops through Belgium which the Belgians denied them, then Germany declared war on them.
FYI there were several key moments where that almost prevented WW1 from happening before it even started between the time of the Arch Dukes assassination and official declaration of war by Austrians on the Serbians
Sorry, correction, I was thinking of the invasion of Poland. My bad.
 

thestaggy

Honorary Master
Joined
May 11, 2011
Messages
15,262
It was actually the birth of the German nation state that upset Europe. This was particularly true of France, who would not get over their butthurt following the Franco-Prussian War for another century.

Europe was pretty balanced. with Britain, France and Russia stomping around and in the case of France and Britain, the world. Prussia was at the time a second-rate power and the German states were loosely unified.

Then Prussia beat France, united Germany and suddenly overnight you had a country that displaced France and Russia as the pre-eminent continental power and in terms of manpower, surpassed Britain. This same power then started eyeing the globe, wanting a piece of the pie the French and British were sharing. This further rubbed the established European powers the wrong way and greatly threatened the Brits as a potentially hostile navy (no colonial empire without a navy) was forming on their doorstep. It would be like a planet the size of Jupiter suddenly spawning in the middle of our solar system; everything would go haywire.

That is why Bismarck was behind an intricate web of treaties and alliances that put Germany at the centre of European affairs and it would be this same web that would help trigger WWI. He knew the established powers had it in for the young German state and so he looked to protect it while at the same time expanding it. He notably done all he could to isolate the French by keeping the Russians and British onside as he knew war with France was an inevitability. Unfortunately, Wilhelm II was a potato of a diplomat and he managed to fall foul of both the Russians and British, so instead of France being the isolated one it was Germany surrounded on all sides.
 
Last edited:

Lupus

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 25, 2006
Messages
16,898
It was actually the birth of the German nation state that upset Europe. This was particularly true of France, who would not get over their butthurt following the Franco-Prussian War for another century.

Europe was pretty balanced. with Britain, France and Russia stomping around and in the case of France and Britain, the world. Prussia was at the time a second-rate power and the German states were loosely unified.

Then Prussia beat France, united Germany and suddenly overnight you had a country that displaced France and Russia as the pre-eminent continental power and in terms of manpower, surpassed Britain. This same power then started eyeing the globe, wanting a piece of the pie the French and British were sharing. This further rubbed the established European powers the wrong way and greatly threatened the Brits as a potentially hostile navy (no colonial empire without a navy) was forming on their doorstep. It would be like a planet the size of Jupiter suddenly spawning in the middle of our solar system; everything would go haywire.

That is why Bismarck weaved his intricate web of treaties and alliances, the same web that triggered WWI. He knew the established powers had it in for the young German state and so he looked to protect it while at the same time expanding it. He notably done all he could to isolate the French by keeping the Russians and British onside as he knew war with France was an inevitability. Unfortunately, Wilhelm II was a potato of a diplomat and he managed to fall foul of both the Russians and British, so instead of France being the isolated one it was Germany surrounded on all sides.
The whole of Europe was a cluster-%#43 during that time period, I mean Italy wasn't unified properly, Germany didn't really exist as Germany and so on. What we have now is very different to what the world was like 100 or so years ago.
 

Wasabee!

Expert Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2012
Messages
4,453
They so inbred can you really call them cousins.
The only inbred thing is your attitude towards people you didn't know.

You seem to have some big chip on your shoulder hating on the Germans. Care to explain the spotlight on Hitler/Germans? Maybe you should read up on Stalin or Mao...

It was additionally responsible for vast numbers of deaths with estimates ranging from 30 to 70 million victims.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mao_Zedong
 

Lupus

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 25, 2006
Messages
16,898
The only inbred thing is your attitude towards people you didn't know.

You seem to have some big chip on your shoulder hating on the Germans. Care to explain the spotlight on Hitler/Germans? Maybe you should read up on Stalin or Mao...



Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mao_Zedong
He was referring to the royal families at that time period, not particularly the Germans, but the entire European royal families.
Kaiser Willhelm II was the eldest Grandchild of Queen Victoria
King George V of England was her other grandchild
Csar Nicholas of Russia was her other grandchild

So these three were cousins and were waging war on each other.
 

Polymathic

Honorary Master
Joined
Mar 22, 2010
Messages
14,533
The only inbred thing is your attitude towards people you didn't know.

You seem to have some big chip on your shoulder hating on the Germans. Care to explain the spotlight on Hitler/Germans? Maybe you should read up on Stalin or Mao...



Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mao_Zedong
FYI the killing baby Hitler is popular thought experiment. I am also well aware of the atrocities done by the Chinese and Russians, even British French . You jumping to conclusions to the wrong conclusions.

Also assuming that you are smarter than other people will in your case leave you wrong 90% of the time.
 

lumeer

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2018
Messages
844
This question got me thinking. Beethoven's father was an abusive drunk. It is well documented that he wanted Beethoven to become a child prodigy à la Mozart so that he could profiteer off the child. To this end he forced Beethoven to practice behind the keyboard for many hours of the day and he would hit, sometimes beat, Beethoven when he made mistakes (reportedly he nearly killed the young Beethoven on two occasions). It is said that after a night of drinking with his friends, he would wake up the young Beethoven in the early hours of the morning to show off his son's piano playing skills in front of his drunken friends and would humiliate and hit the boy when he did not perform to expectation. Despite all of this, Beethoven sought emotional refuge in music and went on to become, in my opinion, the greatest musical genius in the history of mankind.

One could speculate that had Beethoven's father not abused him, he might not have gone on to become the great musician that he was, that those many hours spent behind the keyboard learning music during his young formative years might have made the difference between him subsequently becoming the great Ludwig van Beethoven as opposed to merely a talented pianist or moderately good composer. On the one hand, Beethoven's father was a horrible man and what he did was wrong, on the other hand, it may have resulted in a greater good.
 

Nick333

Honorary Master
Joined
Nov 17, 2005
Messages
34,567
I'd raise him and teach him love.

I'd also mack on his mom. If I'm raising her kid, why not?
Yeah, I like that. Just being nice to him would probably achieve as much. What's wrong with us that we automatically go to killing?
 

Frequent visitor

Expert Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2018
Messages
2,809


This baby grows up to be responsible for the deaths of Around 6 million Jews; using broadest definition, 17 million victims overall.

The question is would you kill baby Hitler to save the lives of millions of people?
I find the phrasing of this interesting. The fate of 6 million Jews is separated from the other 11 million claimed victims.

Then there is the question of whether or not he has sole responsibility for the deaths.
 

Polymathic

Honorary Master
Joined
Mar 22, 2010
Messages
14,533
I find the phrasing of this interesting. The fate of 6 million Jews is separated from the other 11 million claimed victims.

Then there is the question of whether or not he has sole responsibility for the deaths.
I got it from Wikipedia
 
Top