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

[David Floyd]

On the Western Front it tended towards stalemate. However, a German general named von Mudra also won some pretty impressive victories on a "stalemated" front.

Further, from 1914 on, Germany knocked out at least one combatant per year out of the war (Belgium, Serbia, Romania, Russia, and Italy was on the way out as well).

The Germans inflicted insanely higher casualties on the French/BEF than the French and BEF did on them, and while they stayed on the defensive - with only local counterattacks - this was even more pronounced. The French and British were intentionally reporting significantly distorted casualty figures from the battlefield to the politicians.

Even Verdun probably could have been won if the Germans had kept at it, and as late as 1918, the only reason the BEF was able to advance was because the German army in Flanders (the British sector) was voluntarily falling back - anytime they stood and fought the BEF, the BEF took a bit of an ass-whipping in terms of casualties vs. rate/amount of advance, particularly as compared to the American advance.

[Inverse Icarus]

Originally posted by Azazel
Yes, if you come from the future, and know the consequences, No, otherwise.

did you learn nothign from red alert? if hitler isn't there, stalin takes over almost all of europe.

jesus christ... kids these days.

[Inverse Icarus]

But why the confrontational attitude if someone across a Boston subway platform happens to say: "Whoa! Check out that guy with the Hitler mustache! It's totally like Hitler's! It's all short and stuff. Remember when Hitler was all, you know, killing everybody? That was raw! Hey, why is that guy staring at us?"

On one hand, a little hostility is understandable. You're just standing around, minding your own business, waiting for the Red Line, and some guy starts smarting off — just because you happen to have facial hair practically copyrighted by one of history's bloodiest tyrants. It's not like you're wearing a swastika on your arm, and even if you were — who's to say it's not a different swastika? You know, an anti-racist swastika. Your own thing. It's like, "look! It's not a swastika! It's a nicetika!"

[Agathon]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat

My point is that an attacker who loses isn't in a good negotiating position. The choices are (a) don't attack; (b) if you do attack, don't lose (blame von Bulow for hanging up von Kluck in that regard); or (c) take what you get dealt if you screw up a and b.

But it's also true that lording it over a defeated enemy is extremely bad character and, more importantly, is bad policy.

Let's cheer for the US for a minute () - the way Japan was dealt with after the war was more reasonable. Impoverishing and humiliating a defeated enemy just makes them want to get back at you even more: after all the desire for revenge is one of the most potent human emotions. By all means try to minimize the future threat from a beaten enemy, but don't humiliate them.

[David Floyd]

Well, I'm pretty sure the atomic bombings said "*****!" better than anything we could have done after the war

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by Uber KruX
"look! It's not a swastika! It's a nicetika!"

I think I should also mention that I love your avatar

[Az]

Originally posted by Uber KruX


did you learn nothign from red alert? if hitler isn't there, stalin takes over almost all of europe.

exactly.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Agathon
But it's also true that lording it over a defeated enemy is extremely bad character and, more importantly, is bad policy.

Well, let's think of it this way. Versailles let the Germans off a lot more easily than say... the way the Romans dealt with Carthage.

Let's cheer for the US for a minute () - the way Japan was dealt with after the war was more reasonable.

Ain't this a role reversal? The US motive wasn't nearly that benevolent. Rapid restoration of Japan was necessary to act as a forward containment against Soviet power projection abilities, so a lot of the "enlightenment" of the Marshall plan was very firmly rooted in the anti-Communist strategies being implemented by the US.

Impoverishing and humiliating a defeated enemy just makes them want to get back at you even more: after all the desire for revenge is one of the most potent human emotions. By all means try to minimize the future threat from a beaten enemy, but don't humiliate them.

How much you can get away with also depends on how thoroughly you've broken them.

[Az]

Michael, you commie.

[/Ned]

[MichaeltheGreat]

[JohnT]

Originally posted by Tassadar5000




I think I should also mention that I love your avatar

Yes, a swastika made of hammers and sickles. That's nice.

[BeBMan]

Aborted - of course not, unless he comitted a lot of capital crimes before he was born.

Murdered - of course not (before his rise to power - after he did what he did in power it is debatable)

Otherwise killed - maybe executed because of treason after his coup in 1923? Not sure.

[orange]

But it's also true that lording it over a defeated enemy is extremely bad character and, more importantly, is bad policy.

Agreed, but let us not forget that just months earlier the Germans unleashed Brest-Litovsk, which was as bad as if not worse than Versailles.

[Urban Ranger]

No.

Who knows what would happen after Hitler was killed? Some far worse monster could have emerged.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by orange
Agreed, but let us not forget that just months earlier the Germans unleashed Brest-Litovsk, which was as bad as if not worse than Versailles.

The thing is, Versailles punished Germany as a country, including all its people. Punishing only those who were responsible is fair. Seeking compensation for damages is fair. Punishing those who had nothing to do with the war is not fair.