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

[SlowwHand]

Read the book. Well in advance.

[Jaguar]

Even if he says he's going to do evil stuff, you can't kill him for it. You can only kill him for actually doing evil stuff.

[loinburger]

The answer kind of depends on whether or not we've got free will. If we do, then Hitler's innocent until he's not. If we don't, then **** 'em.

[SlowwHand]

At the very least, people should have believed what was going on much, much sooner.

[David Floyd]

MtG:

Why would Germany want a war in 1914? Germany didn't start the fight, or at the very least they weren't solely responsible for it.

And the irony is, the nation that made the Entente victory possible, the US, didn't even sign onto the Treaty of Versailles, because they didn't feel that it fit into the 14 Points - ie, it really wasn't all that fair.

And you would be right if you made the point that the terms Germany gave to France after the Franco-Prussian War were also unfair, but that isn't the point.

[Cruddy]

On balance, no.

True, it would have prevented the Holocaust.

But I don't think it would have prevented WW2 as such (Fascists V Communists V Capitalists). The factors leading up to it (population, economic, lack of militarisation).

Also, Germany might have ended up with a leader who wasn't a total lunatic. Scary thought that.

Better the devil you know.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
How is Germany invading Belgium starting the fight when Russia and France declared war on Germany before that?

And what a coincidence, Germany was already pre-mobilized and ready to go.

Neither the French nor Russians were ever in hell going to come get them, but Germany was set to go.

edit - never mind the details of Germany declaring war on France and Russia either, but the first decisive commitment of forces was von Bulow's move on Liege.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by David Floyd
MtG:

Why would Germany want a war in 1914? Germany didn't start the fight, or at the very least they weren't solely responsible for it.

Well, since I've never had the opportunity to interview the Kaiser or Ludendorff, I can't tell you why he chose to declare war on Russia on August 1st or France on August 3, or why he decided to execute the Schlieffen plan, even though it called for invasion of a neutral country.

And you would be right if you made the point that the terms Germany gave to France after the Franco-Prussian War were also unfair, but that isn't the point.

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.

[St Leo]

It is logically impossible to abort Hitler. Hitler wasn't Hitler before being born.

[David Floyd]

Well, since I've never had the opportunity to interview the Kaiser or Ludendorff, I can't tell you why he chose to declare war on Russia on August 1st or France on August 3, or why he decided to execute the Schlieffen plan, even though it called for invasion of a neutral country.

And, for that matter, why did Russia choose to encourage Serbia to be hostile and belligerent towards Austria-Hungary in the first place?

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.

It's hard to say who the responsible party is in WW1 - I think it's fair to say that all major powers bear some of the blame.

As to Germany losing, read a book called "The Pity of War" by Niall Ferguson - it presents an interesting viewpoint.

[MichaeltheGreat]

I wouldn't say Germany bears even most of the blame, but they made the mistake of piling in to a fight that they later lost.

The causes are interesting, because they're so damn convoluted.

[David Floyd]

Yes, going to war is always wrong, but on the other hand, I think that Germany had a reasonable expectation of winning the war at the outset (or, at least, a damn certain expectation of not losing to any combination of European powers), and, before the US entered the war in a major way, I think the facts somewhat bore this out.

[Inverse Icarus]

No.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Yes, going to war is always wrong, but on the other hand, I think that Germany had a reasonable expectation of winning the war at the outset (or, at least, a damn certain expectation of not losing to any combination of European powers), and, before the US entered the war in a major way, I think the facts somewhat bore this out.

Germany was ****ed once von Bulow got too cautious. The rest of it was just a long bloody stalemate.

[Az]

Yes, if you come from the future, and know the consequences, No, otherwise.