Quantcast
Would you kill baby Hitler?

Forums - Politics Discussion - Would you kill baby Hitler?

Would you kill baby Hitler?

Yes 17 16.35%
 
No 87 83.65%
 
Total:104

Only on VGC can you have a debate about killing baby Hitler turn into a debate about quantum mechanics.



Massimus - "Trump already has democrat support."

Around the Network

No, absolutely not. I would never kill baby Hitler. I think people who would say yes are more likely to advocate for authoritarianism because they believe they can control the world. For those of us who actually understand history would know that following the collapse of the German Empire at the end of the First World War, it created a political vacuum that caused every radical from both the left and right to come out of the woodwork to try and gain a position of political power. You didn't have a simple situation where you had the Social Democrats and Conservatives in power while the Nazis and Communists were duking it out on the streets. There were probably hundreds of fringe political groups out there. The Nazis just happened to be the ones who came out on top and Hitler just happened to be the head of the Nazi Party, a party that while he helped define and even used his artistic skills to create the Swastika logo for, he did not even create the party. The sad truth is if it wasn't Hitler who came to power, there's a good chance that some other dictator would have, possibly someone even worse than Hitler. Hitler did not create or even popularize the ideas he proposed. They were already there. The Second World War was probably going to happen anyway (it was predicted back in 1919) because of how badly the Allies screwed up the conclusion of the First World War.

In the end, we still most likely would have had similar terrible events occur and you would be in prison for murdering a baby. So there you go.



Check out my art blog: http://jon-erich-art.blogspot.com

Time paradox blah blah blah stuff. But if I could without screwing up the entire timeline in some unforeseen fashion I would probably steal him away to a different place to be brought up by different people. It still might stop Germany from going off the rails. Germany at that time was very ripe for war. So maybe prevents the Holocaust, but doesn't prevent Germany from going apeshit over the grievances it perceived from WWI.



A warrior keeps death on the mind from the moment of his first breath to the moment of his last.



dharh said:
Time paradox blah blah blah stuff. But if I could without screwing up the entire timeline in some unforeseen fashion I would probably steal him away to a different place to be brought up by different people. It still might stop Germany from going off the rails. Germany at that time was very ripe for war. So maybe prevents the Holocaust, but doesn't prevent Germany from going apeshit over the grievances it perceived from WWI.

To truly make a shot to avoid WWII Germany should have been politically and geographically broken down into nonexistence  and consumed by bordering countries after WWI.



Immersiveunreality said:
dharh said:
Time paradox blah blah blah stuff. But if I could without screwing up the entire timeline in some unforeseen fashion I would probably steal him away to a different place to be brought up by different people. It still might stop Germany from going off the rails. Germany at that time was very ripe for war. So maybe prevents the Holocaust, but doesn't prevent Germany from going apeshit over the grievances it perceived from WWI.

To truly make a shot to avoid WWII Germany should have been politically and geographically broken down into nonexistence  and consumed by bordering countries after WWI.

Yeah cause that kind of thing hasn't gone horribly wrong time after time throughout history.



A warrior keeps death on the mind from the moment of his first breath to the moment of his last.



Around the Network
dharh said:
Immersiveunreality said:

To truly make a shot to avoid WWII Germany should have been politically and geographically broken down into nonexistence  and consumed by bordering countries after WWI.

Yeah cause that kind of thing hasn't gone horribly wrong time after time throughout history.

Yeah every different kind of practice has gone wrong in history so that is not really a solid argument and also new countries that still exist to today were made that way throughout history,so yes thing can always go wrong and there are many different kind of ways to go about it but hey it might have been worth the shot right considering it would rarely result into more casualties than WWII had?



Immersiveunreality said:
dharh said:

Yeah cause that kind of thing hasn't gone horribly wrong time after time throughout history.

Yeah every different kind of practice has gone wrong in history so that is not really a solid argument and also new countries that still exist to today were made that way throughout history,so yes thing can always go wrong and there are many different kind of ways to go about it but hey it might have been worth the shot right considering it would rarely result into more casualties than WWII had?

Sectarian violence, forever.  Also, the example of WWII is generally held as the reason we have not had a world war since.  Prevent that WW only find that we had a different WW.  I'll take the history we know over a history we don't.



A warrior keeps death on the mind from the moment of his first breath to the moment of his last.



dharh said:
Immersiveunreality said:

Yeah every different kind of practice has gone wrong in history so that is not really a solid argument and also new countries that still exist to today were made that way throughout history,so yes thing can always go wrong and there are many different kind of ways to go about it but hey it might have been worth the shot right considering it would rarely result into more casualties than WWII had?

Sectarian violence, forever.  Also, the example of WWII is generally held as the reason we have not had a world war since.  Prevent that WW only find that we had a different WW.  I'll take the history we know over a history we don't.

First bolded: The violence already happened and that was WWI,Germany lost territory after the war without much violence

Second bolded:Thats why completely dissolving the country could have been one of the only chances of preventing it.

Third bolded:Yeah, but in your first post you were talking about changing the history so this kinda changes goalposts no?



Jon-Erich said:
No, absolutely not. I would never kill baby Hitler. I think people who would say yes are more likely to advocate for authoritarianism because they believe they can control the world. For those of us who actually understand history would know that following the collapse of the German Empire at the end of the First World War, it created a political vacuum that caused every radical from both the left and right to come out of the woodwork to try and gain a position of political power. You didn't have a simple situation where you had the Social Democrats and Conservatives in power while the Nazis and Communists were duking it out on the streets. There were probably hundreds of fringe political groups out there. The Nazis just happened to be the ones who came out on top and Hitler just happened to be the head of the Nazi Party, a party that while he helped define and even used his artistic skills to create the Swastika logo for, he did not even create the party. The sad truth is if it wasn't Hitler who came to power, there's a good chance that some other dictator would have, possibly someone even worse than Hitler. Hitler did not create or even popularize the ideas he proposed. They were already there. The Second World War was probably going to happen anyway (it was predicted back in 1919) because of how badly the Allies screwed up the conclusion of the First World War.

In the end, we still most likely would have had similar terrible events occur and you would be in prison for murdering a baby. So there you go.

Actually, in all likelihood there would have not have been a fascist dictatorship in Germany had Hitler been eliminated at birth. He is the source of the anti-semitic rhetoric as well as the primary personality cult that drove forward the scientific racism of the Nazi ideology. While Hitler didn’t begin the Nazi party, he shaped it and is responsible for its expansion. It is unlikely such a regime would have risen in Germany outside of the Nazi party, and if you actually knew your history and read the literature on alternative paths, that the path of history that occurred was incredibly unlikely - the rise of fascism, and the cult of personality surrounding Hitler and his influence, then you would be aware that it is highly unlikely anything of that sort would have occurred. Although a war with USSR and Germany was probably inevitable given the German left was much unlike the USSR (which was more of a pseudo-left regime, they were still hierarchical and authoritarian: still right-wing, the Trots and black army were the relative leftists - and they lost).

Also, the question is not “would you kill a baby” it is “would you kill baby Hitler” - bringing up alternative rules like “you would be arrested for killing babies” is not something that should be considered as it is an unnecessary complication.



I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.

Just about everyone is born innocent, if not everyone. And taking Hitler out of the equation might somehow give you someone similar who is more competent or more evil. So I wouldn't.



Lifetime Sales Predictions 

PS4: 122 mil (was 100 million) Xbox One: 55 mil (was 50 mil) Switch: 79 million

3DS: 77 mil (was 73 million)

"Let go your earthly tether, enter the void, empty and become wind." - Guru Laghima