So I'm sitting here surfing Evo over breakfast, simply because I couldn't be bothered going to get the newspaper, and thus, I needed something to read while eating my ham and tomato sandwhich, and Evo simply didn't haven enough posts to last my breakfast. So I clicked on over to Hyper where I came across this Hypothetical thread. It seemed like a good idea, but it simply hasn't generated the discussion it deserves in a cesspit of spam such as Off-Topic Hyper. Plus, since I'm banned, I can't reply there. So I thought I'd start a similar (read: identical) thread here at Evo.

Everynow and then I'll post a new hypothetical question. Firstly, I'll start with the Hitler question they have going on at Hyper. Except, it'll just be, "Given the chance, would you kill Adolf Hitler, knowing the horrors he will commit during World War II?" Timeframe will be 1933, as he hasn't come to power yet, and thus this raises the moral dilemma of being killed for doing nothing wrong.

My thoughts: No. I would keep Hitler alive, much like the British did in the war. It's the old adage of "Better the devil you know, then the devil you don't."

Elaboration: In Mein Kampf, Hitler expressed his racial dislike for almost anyone who was not of Arayan descent. He linked the Jews and the Bolsheviks as the Arayans enemies, he hated the Jews, "A parasite in the body of other nations, contaminating the purity of blood, exploiting and corrupting the nation," but he was not alone. His views were most probably shaped by the members of the "Volkisch Movement," a group which promoted a pure German race as the foundation of the greater German state.

Thus, while Hitler was a fanatical, he was not alone in his anti-semetic views. It's drawing a long straw for me to say this, but it is possible, note possible, not likely, that the Holocaust would've occured without Hitler as Fuhrer. Himmler and Goebbels were fanaticals and also very anti-semetic.
Let me explain, Hitler's totalitarian, monolithic government was anything but. Hitler encouraged a chaotic system of government, and is quite difficult to explain, but it basically entails Hitler setting up rival governments which overlap already existing branches of government to help keep Hitler in power. (eg. Ministry of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda, led by Joseph Goebbels was in direct competition with Max Amann, Reich Leader of the Press.) This sytem allowed rivalry to ensure, with both branches of government trying to work out what the Fuhrer wished for them to achieve.

It was not part of the Fuhrer's job to dapple in lowly government work, he was to stand above all that. It was all part of the Fuhrerprinzip, that Goebbels and Hitler tried so hard to try and convey. So, if you're following me here, Hitler stayed out of daily runnings of government, as he hated paperwork (he was an avid movie fan and often stayed up until 2am watching movies, he was also an insomniac hypochondriac, but I digress) and thus, both leaders of a particular branch of government try and work out what Hitler wants achieved, and then they work out the plans, then they bring it to Hitler for his approval. Often they did not even seek approval, for Hitler often did not wish to be disturbed.

There is also records of Hitler never once approving or confirming the Holocaust. Never, not once. There is no doubt that he knew and approved of it, but he never once officially approved of it. It was all the work of Himmler. In fact, Hitler wasn't even at the Posen Conference on October 6th, 1943. (the conference where the final solution to the Jewish question was outlined to the Nazi Gauleiters)

Therefore, in conclusion, I would keep Hitler alive, as he helped contribute exceptionally to Germany's loss in World War II (The British called off Operation Foxley [a plot to assassinate Hitler at his home in Obersalzburg] as Hitler was making too many mistakes,) and there is reason enough to suggest that there is a minute possibility that the holocaust may have occured without Hitler as Fuhrer (of course, for this theory to work, we have to assume that the Weimar Republic did collapse and that there is a Nazi party of sorts in power). It is highly improbable of course, that the Holocaust would have occured without Hitler's influence, but I don't think anyone on this forum is really aware of how close Germany went to winning World War II, even with Hitler at the helm. Germany's production was chaotic and ineffectual, Albert Speer revolutionised the production system and is credited with singlehandedly lengthening the war by one year, possibly two. Hitler, due to idiocy and ideology made blunder after blunder (not invading Britain in Operation Sea Lion straight away, preferring to chase his dreams of Lebensraum, not enforcing women to work in the workforce as part of his "Kinder Kirche und Kuche" (Children, Church, Kitchen) ideology.

What are you thoughts? I'll write up a bit more later, but please don't just respond with "Yep, I'd kill him, he was bad." Before you make your decision, consider this: If Hitler had died in the July 20 plot of 1942 he would've gone down in history as one of the greatest leaders in History.

I wouldn't mess with the past. It could send a chain reaction and I could just never exist, y'know? I wouldn't kill him.

Hmm, a very interesting hypothetical there.

Now, i'm not too fond of history, never have been, and such, I really have no idea about hitler, apart from the 'fact' that he was 'evil', that he massacred alot of people, and all that nastiness.

From going by what you've written, it's obvious that Hitler himself wasn't alone in making these decisions (i've always wondered how a man who's not blonde haired and blue eyed, could hate non-Arayans), and if he was killed, it's possible that a smarter stool pidgeon could've been used to act out the same atrocities. Knowing that, i'd still kill him, if only to quench my curiosity as to what would happen if he died before it all happened.

There are more then a few "Alternative Histories" which show things like that happening. I'll say that killing him would have done more damage then good.
a) the Weimar Republic would never thad stood a chance against the Soviets if and when they attacked
b) As bad as it sounds, WW2 was a war that had to be frought, as that allowed nation to work together with goups like the UN the Empires to break up, and for the idea of a war of that scale to be something that governments are working to never see again.

On the subject of the Weimar Republic, it never would've lasted past 1932, with or without the Nazi Party. Hitler and the NSDAP did attack the Weimar Republic at every opportunity (Hitler constantly referred to the Weimar Republic as the "November Criminals [Weimar was constantly associated with hatred and loss, due to the signing of the hated Treaty Of Versailles]) and even without the Nazi's, the Weimar Republic would've collapsed as, in times of crisis, there is always a "polarisation" of voters. That is, people go to the extreme left or the extreme right, as they (Communists and Fascists) always promise relief from the despair. This is what happened in the 1932 election.

Anyway, with the hypothetical, it basically boils down to kill Hitler and possibly save 12 million lives, but possibly lose World War II or keep Hitler alive and condemn 12 million persons to death, but win the war.

It's times like this I wish Pazuzu posted at Evo, simply to correct my mistakes and add his awesome knowledge of politics to this.

Why don't you drop him a PM then? ;)

Yeah, I'd try and add to this subject, though I'm sure whatever I say would come out stupid and incoherent. :D

Maybe the next Hypothetical. :)

Maverick, is this just a way to study for you to practise HSC Modern History essays? :P

I would have killed him, on the basis that many of the world's issues today can be traced back to his actions, not just the Holocaust. Things like the current Israeli-Palestine conflict, and the subsequent terrorism which this contributes to.

Do go on, I'm interested in hearing that theory.

It's definitely a tough hypothetical when you put it into perspective. I think due to the fact that I have no emotional attachments to any of the victims, I am rather biased. I'd probably keep him alive. If the Allies didn't win the war, Hitlers plans may have gone pretty damn close to becoming reality.

Haha, no...

>_>

I have to admit, me writing all that out from memory did help, but there's a fair bit I missed.

Anyway, the majority of people have said they would keep him alive, simply to ensure the Allies won the war. That's a pretty callous thing to do, writing off 12 million lives for the sake of a war. I'd still keep him alive though.

That's the thing isn't it, it's all about the possibility perhaps it would be possible to kill Hitler and still 'win the war'.

Say hypothetically that the British carry out Operation Foxley and assassinates Hitler. Most likely, Albert Speer, not Heinrich Himmler or Hermann Goring, Speer would likely become the new German leader, as Hitler had taken a special liking to Speer due to their shared interest in architecture.

So, now Speer is in charge and apparently he knows nothing about the Holocaust (a claim he continued until his death in 1981), so hypothetically, the Holocaust would've continued (due to Himmler in his role as Reichsfuhrer SS) and now Germany are a very realistic chance to win the war (due to Speer's reorganisation of the German armaments industry [he increased gun production by 27%, ammunition by 97% and tank production by 25% in the first six months of his role as Minister for Armaments and Munitions and this is while the Allies were bombing Germany])

Tough question when it comes down to it, isn't it? This question is, in essence, a test of ethics.

And, yes, now I'm just studying for my modern history exam :P

Indeed it is a tough question, there is the idea of stopping the 'evil man' and hence preventing disaster , but perhaps the act will only create worse disaster.