Announcement

**DinoDoc** · May 30, 2003, 20:35

No, because you'd be murdering an innocent man.

**MichaeltheGreat** · May 30, 2003, 21:00

Trouble is, Hitler wrote Mein Kampff after his failed little coup-let, so he wasn't quite innocent.

If you wanted to be a weenie and wait until there was undoubtedly adequate cause, the repudiation of the Treaty of Versailles and announced rearmament was time to get him before the rearmament progressed far enough to be problematic.

**David Floyd** · May 30, 2003, 21:01

But the Treaty of Versailles was extremely unfair to begin with, so why shouldn't he repudiate it?

**JCG** · May 30, 2003, 21:46

Repudiating Versailles is one thing, doing that while clearly in the process of rearming the country for a new war of expansion sometime in the future is another, IMHO.

Still...I don't support aborting/killing him, because I have no sure way of knowing if say, Goebbels/Goering/Hess/ et al would take his place and end up doing pretty much the same crap.

**MichaeltheGreat** · May 30, 2003, 21:49

Originally posted by David Floyd
But the Treaty of Versailles was extremely unfair to begin with, so why shouldn't he repudiate it?

It was that bit about rearmament and the stated goals of Mein Kampff, etc., that sort of aggravated things.

And the Treaty of Versailles was very fair. It never would have happened if ol' Kaiser Bill hadn't decided to invade and plunder Europe and get a few million people killed in the process. Ask them about "unfair." If the German government didn't like it, they could have simply remained occupied territories of the victorious powers, under some form of government similar to what they intended to impose on those they intended to conquer.

In other words, "**** 'em, they started the fight, and they lost"

**MichaeltheGreat** · May 30, 2003, 21:50

Originally posted by JCG

Still...I don't support aborting/killing him, because I have no sure way of knowing if say, Goebbels/Goering/Hess/ et al would take his place and end up doing pretty much the same crap.

In for a penny, in for a pound. Waste them too.

**Imran Siddiqui** · May 30, 2003, 21:51

In other words, "**** 'em, they started the fight, and they lost"

But Germany didn't start the fight

.

**MichaeltheGreat** · May 30, 2003, 21:58

I suppose the dirty Belgies kidnapped Karl von Bulow and dragged him to Liege, and the rest of those Germans who came along with him were the rescue party?

**Imran Siddiqui** · May 30, 2003, 21:59

How is Germany invading Belgium starting the fight when Russia and France declared war on Germany before that?

**Shi Huangdi** · May 30, 2003, 22:01

No. Before he did his crimes, Hitler was an innocent man with a right to continue living. If someone killed him while he was innocent they would be accountable to God for their crime.

**Lonestar** · May 30, 2003, 22:07

If you're asking if we would go back in time to kill him...no, what's done is done.

If it happened Naturally...then yes.

**DinoDoc** · May 30, 2003, 22:15

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
I suppose the dirty Belgies kidnapped Karl von Bulow and dragged him to Liege, and the rest of those Germans who came along with him were the rescue party?

If the Germans were spoiling for a fight, they would have done it in 1905.

**Joseph** · May 30, 2003, 22:23

All three, just take you pick.

**History Guy** · May 30, 2003, 22:29

Aborted? No!

Killed, yes.

What is the point of the question?

**Jaguar** · May 30, 2003, 22:37

If you went back in time, (so you knew what he'd eventually do) you should kill him regardless. If you don't know that he's going to kill millions, then you shouldn't kill him.

Announcement

Should Hitler have been aborted/murdered/otherwise killed before his rise to power?

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment