Would You Kill Adolph Hitler, Before He Was Born?

reply to post by Stumpy1


The world as a whole isn't very different, we still have countries killing and maiming their citizens. However you first tried to ask how countries like the US were different and i gave you very clear reasons. I have not lived through rubella nope, but guess what, i don't have to have to know history well.

I see you missed my point about being an arnchair critic as well, i myself have written letters to MP's and even gone on protests, it's about all i can do in a democracy. I'd still consider myself an armchair critic but i have played my part in trying to change things.

Yes there were medical advances but i will ask again, do you think it's ok to experiment on unwilling subjets as long as we advance in our knowledge? Once you start doing such things it's a very slippery slope, you'll end up with anyone being grabbed for experimentation and then specific people and oh yep we're back to Hitler.

If you can't see all this i won't bother to debate further, i'll never agree to experimenting on a human being for any reason. The only time i could deem it ok is if the person is say suffering from terminal cancer and goes on an experimental drug trial. However even that should be voluntary.

Hitler was a terrible man who did terrible things, but regarding the OP's question, i could not have killed him as i dont' know what would have happened if i had. The future could have been even worse and the people of the world would be unaware of what their governments can get up to if not controlled.

[edit on 19-6-2008 by ImaginaryReality1984]

This thread certainly poses an interesting question. Frankly, it is a question that I have wondered about myself. At various times, I have answered this question in different ways. Of course, I was considering the alternative histories and realities that would be the result of killing Hitler....

The answer, at least for me, was found in the work of one of my favorite musicians, Dan Bern . His song, God Said No (click link for lyrics) addressed this question. In fact, it addresses a number of questions in this vein: saving Kurt Kobain, killing Hitler and saving Christ from dying on the Cross.

Incdentally, this song might seem religious and it might even be accepted as such but it most certainly is NOT.....it just might be accepted as being religious. Nevertheless, it is an interesting song and it expresses one alternative view on "killing Hitler" (second stanza)





[edit on 6/19/2008 by benevolent tyrant]

Faster than you could say the words "Extreme Prejudice".

Seriously, killing him before he was born sounds better than killing him in his cot.

If i had the chance, i wouldn't hesitate for a second.

To all the people who are hesitating because of fear of altering the future-

If you knew you could avert one of the greatest tragedies in human history by altering a current day event, would you do it?

They say the future is uncertain, i for one would be more than willing to test that belief.

I would not....without the holocaust there would not as much negative publicity over genocide/massacres.

We all see how the russian massacre of the farmers and chinas masscres have gone unnoticed, this would not be so public if we didnt concentrate so much on it being terrible.

reply to post by Zenskeptical


However the death of that particular person gives humanity a chance at something better.

Surely you understand that, regardless of the implications in this instance, "the most disadvantageous peace is better than the most just war".

You might comment on how war is unavoidable anyway, but if given the chance to restore all those families that were lost, to save those countless lives and minds, i would not hesitate.

It is true that i would be doing it out of hope, but it would only be because there is a possibility that my hope would be fulfilled as a result of my actions.

i suggest watching "The Last Supper" with Ron Perlman and Cameron Diaz. It addresses this question fairly well.

My answer is no, i would not kill him.

reply to post by JPhish


For the benefit of those who don't have the inclination to watch "The last supper" just because you tell them to, could you please outline where exactly in that film you find the basis for your opinion?

Roald Dahl once wrote a short story called "A fine son". It was first published in Playboy in 1959. An excellent read, higly recommended. (I am sure you can all guess who this fine son was...)

www.roalddahlfans.com...

By the way, I would not kill Adolph Hitler before he was born. Of course not. No child is born evil. An evil human being is a severely damaged human being, and someone inflicted this damage upon him or her. In most cases, this "someone" is the mother or father.

Some of the threads here at ATS lately clearly shows what parents are capable of doing to their children. It just breaks my heart.

I also recommend reading Alice Miller's books (she is a PhD in philosophy, psychology and sociology) to better understand the mental effects of child mistreatment and abuse. (In her book "For your own good" she describes the childhood of Adolf Hitler.)

www.alice-miller.com...



[edit on 19-6-2008 by ziggystar60]

reply to post by ziggystar60


I'm sorry to press my point, but my conviction is clear on this matter.

If you want to argue your point, you'll find no better opponent than someone who has made up his mind.

How many "severely damaged human beings" do you think Hitler managed to create?

A hundred?

A thousand?

There are more ways of doing damage to human society than just killing us off, surely you know that.

reply to post by Anti-Tyrant


i never told anyone to watch anything. I made a suggestion. Watch your diction my friend.

I don't want to ruin a half way decent movie . . . so here's a quote and a small synopsis of the scene.

"It's 1909 and you're alone with a young artist named Adolph. Do you kill him?"

Several characters in the movie contemplate this question and all arrive at their own answers. They cross examine each others ideas and come to various conclusions. Most of them seem to believe it would be justified.

A few of the things they consider are

the fact that at that point in time, he had done absolutely nothing wrong.

the fact that he would eventually be responsible for the death of millions.

I understand it is rather simplistic in the context i have presented it; but the movie as a whole is one huge allegory concerning moral ambiguity.

[edit on 6/19/2008 by JPhish]

reply to post by Anti-Tyrant


I have no interest whatsoever in getting into an argument with you about this subject. My post was of course not directed at you personally, it was my personal anwer to the OP's question.
I may not agree with you, but I respect your opinion. I hope you can respect mine also.

[edit on 19-6-2008 by ziggystar60]

reply to post by JPhish


There was no way for me to get you to highlight the key part of that film without being oblique, sorry.

You make your point as if you are asking me whether or not i would be willing to kill an unarmed man, and usually, i would say i could not.

For me, Time-Travel changes that.

Having seen the horrors of that war through old photography, i would know full well what it is i would be capable of stopping.

If i looked upon the face of hitler, like is suggested in that movie, i hold absolutely no doubt that those pictures would return to my mind immediately*.



Allow me to put it in literal terms;

Would you kill Adolph Hitler, Before he was born, thus averting a certain future of death and destruction, in favour of an uncertain future with an uncertain peace?


If given the choice, i'd do it 10 times out of 10.



*You could say i have been damaged in some way, if you liked.


[edit on 19-6-2008 by Anti-Tyrant]

reply to post by ziggystar60


It was an offer, nothing more.

Originally posted by Anti-Tyrant
reply to post by JPhish

 

Would you kill Adolph Hitler, Before he was born, thus averting a certain future of death and destruction, in favour of an uncertain future with an uncertain peace?

I still do not believe i would kill him. I'm 99% sure.

I know myself well, but not well enough to give you that 1% more.

[edit on 6/19/2008 by JPhish]

Puttin aside unseen outcomes, and the morality of killing a baby...
Without WWII, the world wouldn't have the holocaust to look back on and learn from/be disgusted by. The consequence of that is simply it would be much easier to have a similar geneocide. If someone tried to have a geneocide today, the same way hitler did, what would people compare it to? The Holocaust.
What if they didn't have that reference?
Without the holocaust, would the world still hold the same morals?

reply to post by JPhish


You may find that the 1% you speak of will turn out to be that little voice in your head, quietly muttering "He has a point" to itself.

I suppose i'm a victim of my reality - that if somehow blown back through time to when hitler was still around i would not hesitate to take the opportunity to kill him.

Think about it; for all you know you are going to be the only person in existence who would be able to avert that war.

For all intents and purposes, being sent back in time and dropped right in front of hitler (or nearby) seems as if it would pretty much be as if it was fated to be.

I'm not one to take time-travel for granted, even if i've never used it before.

What if, you murdering him as an unborn infant was to cause an even worse tragedy in history?

In direct reply: yes, that's what I think.
Or, to be more precise, there is no knowing WHAT it would have caused.

My other views pertinent to the subject I expressed earlier.






[edit on 19-6-2008 by Vanitas]

In WW1 his life was spared as a compassionate act by a british 'tommy' as he couldn't shoot a running man in the back.

(This is somewhat off-topic, but being an accuracy freak I hope to be forgiven. )

I have heard the story from the "tommy" himself (on Discovery Channel).

They found themselves standing face to face, each one with his weapon pointed towards the other one, amidst the smoke from the explosions.
They stood there for a few seconds, and then the Englishman slightly moved his gun to the side, to indicate that he was not going to shoot. Hitler stepped towards him, briefly nodded to him as he passed him by, and went his way.

That's the story I heard, as he recounted it.
If there is another version from him, I am going to have to disbelieve the entire incident...





[edit on 19-6-2008 by Vanitas]

Originally posted by Dan Tanna

In WW1 his life was spared as a compassionate act by a british 'tommy' as he couldn't shoot a running man in the back.

[edit on 18-6-2008 by Dan Tanna]

I managed to find the full story.
www.worldwar1.com...

Here's the painting they talk about.
victoriacross.files.wordpress.com...

Here is some info on the guy.
en.wikipedia.org...






[edit on 19-6-2008 by Anubis_4400]