Would you kill baby Hitler?

Nick333

Honorary Master
Joined
Nov 17, 2005
Messages
34,567
It's a thought experiment to see whether a person believes whether or not the ends justify the means.
No, it's not really, because, like I said, there is no real analogue for your scenario. The closest you'll get is bombing a city filled with civilians to end a war, and that scenario differs because of a) culpability of the citizens living in said city b) and the lack of intention of killing innocents.
 

Polymathic

Honorary Master
Joined
Mar 22, 2010
Messages
14,540
No, it's not really, because, like I said, there is no real analogue for your scenario. The closest you'll get is bombing a city filled with civilians to end a war, and that scenario differs because of a) culpability of the citizens living in said city b) and the lack of intention of killing innocents.
Killing the baby/child of a deposed dictator/monarch so that they don't grow up and insight a revolution. That's a common trope
 

Polymathic

Honorary Master
Joined
Mar 22, 2010
Messages
14,540
No, it's not really, because, like I said, there is no real analogue for your scenario. The closest you'll get is bombing a city filled with civilians to end a war, and that scenario differs because of a) culpability of the citizens living in said city b) and the lack of intention of killing innocents.
Killing the baby/child of a deposed dictator/monarch so that they don't grow up and insight a revolution. That's a common trope
 

ekske1

Executive Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2017
Messages
5,073
No, it's not really, because, like I said, there is no real analogue for your scenario. The closest you'll get is bombing a city filled with civilians to end a war, and that scenario differs because of a) culpability of the citizens living in said city b) and the lack of intention of killing innocents.
Don't bother; The OP seems to be attracted to speculative opinion based reasoning exercises, the basic forms.
 

kolaval

Expert Member
Joined
May 13, 2011
Messages
3,580
1. Are you being obtuse?
Who was fighting them in the Pacific and Africa?

2. @R4ziel said they're not sure if they're "happy" that the allies won.
 

thestaggy

Honorary Master
Joined
May 11, 2011
Messages
15,280
It's the Soviets that defeated the Nazis all the Allied Forces really did was ensure that the Red Army didn't reach the Atlantic.
Not this sh*t again.

It was a combined effort.

How do you think the Soviets would've coped if not for Lend-Lease? One-third of the trucks in use by the Soviets by the end of the war were American-built. 30% of the Soviet Air Force was western-built. Canned food, radios, mobile workshops, generators, field ambulances and telephone cable were other vital supplies that were streaming in from the West, especially during the critical period of 1941 - 1943 when the Soviets were treading water.

The Soviets kept the Germans busy, buying the western Allies time and the ally supply lines to the Soviets during this period were vital in the Soviets sustaining their efforts.

Today [1963] some say the Allies didn't really help us ... But listen, one cannot deny that the Americans shipped over to us material without which we could not have equipped our armies held in reserve or been able to continue the war. - Georgy Zhukhov
"Without American production the United Nations [the Allies] could never have won the war." - Jospeh Stalin, publicly, at the Tehran Conference
 

Polymathic

Honorary Master
Joined
Mar 22, 2010
Messages
14,540
Not this sh*t again.

It was a combined effort.

How do you think the Soviets would've coped if not for Lend-Lease? One-third of the trucks in use by the Soviets by the end of the war were American-built. 30% of the Soviet Air Force was western-built. Canned food, radios, mobile workshops, generators, field ambulances and telephone cable were other vital supplies that were streaming in from the West, especially during the critical period of 1941 - 1943 when the Soviets were treading water.

The Soviets kept the Germans busy, buying the western Allies time and the ally supply lines to the Soviets during this period were vital in the Soviets sustaining their efforts.
Allied proganada makes it seem like the D-Day landings were the turning point of the war when in reality the Western Front was undermanned by the Germans as they sending forces to the Russian front as they were hemorrhaging troops and ground to the Soviets.
Once Germany declared war on the Soviets the Soviets were always going to win that war because they could just moving their production facilities further east stretching German lines thinner. It was just the question of how lives Stalin was going to sacrifice and Stalin was willing to sacrifice all his citizens lives to defeat the Nazis
 

Cray

Honorary Master
Joined
Oct 11, 2010
Messages
20,351
Allied proganada makes it seem like the D-Day landings were the turning point of the war when in reality the Western Front was undermanned by the Germans as they sending forces to the Russian front as they were hemorrhaging troops and ground to the Soviets.
Once Germany declared war on the Soviets the Soviets were always going to win that war because they could just moving their production facilities further east stretching German lines thinner. It was just the question of how lives Stalin was going to sacrifice and Stalin was willing to sacrifice all his citizens lives to defeat the Nazis
Opening up a second front in Western Europe was vital for the Russian effort too which is why Stalin put pressure on the allies to hurry up with Overlord.. Had the invasion of Europe by the Allies never occurred, Germany could have focused it's efforts on the Eastern front, splitting his forces is what screwed sealed the fate of the Nazi's.

Keep in mind that the Russians where also supplied by American lend-lease which assisted the combined war effort. Apportioning credit to one aspect of an overall allied victory is pretty difficult. Also keep in mind that the Russians did not engage the engage the Japanese significantly in the Pacific - a responsibility that fell almost entirely to the Americans, Chinese and Indian colonial forces.
 

thestaggy

Honorary Master
Joined
May 11, 2011
Messages
15,280
Allied proganada makes it seem like the D-Day landings were the turning point of the war when in reality the Western Front was undermanned by the Germans as they sending forces to the Russian front as they were hemorrhaging troops and ground to the Soviets.
Once Germany declared war on the Soviets the Soviets were always going to win that war because they could just moving their production facilities further east stretching German lines thinner. It was just the question of how lives Stalin was going to sacrifice and Stalin was willing to sacrifice all his citizens lives to defeat the Nazis
Except Stalin and Zhukov contradict you. That period between 1941 - 1943 when the Soviets were ill-prepared for war and up-rooting their factories, western supplies were vital in keeping the Soviets in the fight.

Bold bit is perhaps a little too much Hollywood. The Soviets learned from their mistakes during Operation Barbarossa (1941). In Germany's follow-up offensive in 1942 (Case Blue), the Germans planned with the assumption that the Soviets would not give ground and continue to commit manpower to doomed areas, as they did in 1941. But the Soviets did not do that. Strategic withdrawals were common place and the mass encirclements during 1941 were not repeated. The Soviets knew they could not sustain the losses of 1941 and had to smarten up their approach. In their own counter-attacks they made use of deception to knock the Germans off balance and attack them in their weaker areas, forgoing bloody frontal attacks were possible.

It was a war of annihilation, but the Soviets learned that that meant not getting your own forces wiped-out in the process.
 

Polymathic

Honorary Master
Joined
Mar 22, 2010
Messages
14,540
Opening up a second front in Western Europe was vital for the Russian effort too which is why Stalin put pressure on the allies to hurry up with Overlord.. Had the invasion of Europe by the Allies never occurred, Germany could have focused it's efforts on the Eastern front, splitting his forces is what screwed sealed the fate of the Nazi's.

Keep in mind that the Russians where also supplied by American lend-lease which assisted the combined war effort. Apportioning credit to one aspect of an overall allied victory is pretty difficult. Also keep in mind that the Russians did not engage the engage the Japanese significantly in the Pacific - a responsibility that fell almost entirely to the Americans, Chinese and Indian colonial forces.
The Germans faith was sealed at Stalingrad, around 300,000 casualties many of them their most experienced troops. Follow that with the battles of Moscow and Kursk. If D-Day landed failed it just would of meant more Soviet losses but they still would of defeated the Nazis
 

Bobbin

Executive Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
6,593
Murder and killing are distinct - that is if you separate the notion of self-defence or protection from murder. The question is whether pre-empting murder/killing is itself a form of murder or just killing, at least in context of the OP. This would depend on your dimension of morality and outcome (In the moment or encompassing all perceivable time).

Some people refuse to do a thing if it seems atrocious in the moment despite long term outcomes, but others evaluate the long term outcomes and equate it into their perception of atrocity of the thing. This difference in perception is often overlooked in debate resulting in a complete misunderstanding on both sides.

The former group might see it as murder, the latter might see it as killing. It is "murder" to kill an innocent baby but it is "killing" to defend your life or that of millions ultimately speaking.

Anyway, in humouring the question as it was intended - I wouldn't kill baby Hitler if this were the only option, only because I am unsure of the consequences/outcomes absent Hitler which could have been perceivably worse. Nationalism is one thing (Germany, Italy and Japan during WW2) that is a debatable evil (If taken too far), but communism seems worse which is a guaranteed atrocity over time - at least in my view/limited understanding. Perhaps if someone could convince or teach me a little more about the theorized effects absent Hitler then I might reconsider.
 
Last edited:
Top