Please spare me the "that can't happen...we can't go back in time" stuff. I just want to know if you could have pulled the trigger.
2007-09-21 05:07:35 · 39 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Wow. Thanks to all who answered. Many different viewpoints and feelings. To me...THIS is Y/A at it's best.
2007-09-21 09:06:06 · update #1
First I must say it is a tempting idea, because the Nazis murdered my mom's parents (my grandparents) along with 10's of millions of Europe's valueable Jewish population.
On the other hand, altough it might be worth it, I would have to think my way past one of my God's 10 commandments.
Besides the "Thou shalt not kill" problem, I have another good "excuse" for not killing the guy.
He was a bad Commander in Chief, probably messing up Germany's war strategy.
Would you really want to risk a smart general replacing "the corporal" at the helm?
How sure are we, that "the little corporal" dictated to those brilliant German war strategists, or was he just the front man (a preening stooge with a funny mustache) for an ologarchy of generals pulling his strings???
Sometimes our bright ideas backfire. Look how toppling Sadam has worked out so far!!!
2007-09-21 06:54:00 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
They had a twilight zone episode where a recent actress (I think she's on Grey's Anatomy) went back in time to kill baby hitler. The whole episode centered around her moral dilemma with killing a baby that hadn't done anything (but would one day kill millions).
In the end she takes the baby and jumps off of a bridge into a river, killing herself. The housekeeper for the Hitlers sees this and panics, knowing that the parents will be furious. In a moment of desparation she buys a baby off of a local gypsy/homeless person and passes it off as the real Adolph.
The moral of the story is that if something is destined to happen, we cannot change it. There will always be Hitlers and Stalins in the world.
But if I was given the opportunity? I would pull that trigger in a heartbeat... and I'm a pascifist
2007-09-21 05:17:37 · answer #2 · answered by future_jewish_public_defender 4 · 4⤊ 0⤋
The Holocaust never had any impact in Hitler's losing the war (no matter how barbarous it was carried out). The serious error that Hitler had committed is the cardinal mistake in conducting any warfare... that is, in fighting a two-front war. He was fighting both in the Western Front (against Anglo-American forces) and the Eastern Front (against Russian forces) at the same time. His whole armed forces was spread out between these two fronts. Had Hitler concentrated his campaign first on the Western front alone, he surely could have defeated the Anglo-American forces. Once that is accomplished, he could have then re-grouped his forces and concentrated on the invasion of Russia.
2016-05-20 01:11:54 · answer #3 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Messing with history could be a bad thing. Who knows what effect one little change years ago could have on the present. Sure, we may be able to avoided a war and the Holocaust and much more, but maybe those things were necessary for us to be what we are today. Maybe the nation of Israel would have never been formed without the tragic events of the Holocaust? This is a good question to ponder and believe me I will. But for now, as much as I would like to put a bullet in Hitler's head, I think I'm going to leave history to God. I have enough problems managing my own little life, let alone the world's.
2007-09-21 07:02:36 · answer #4 · answered by Brad M 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
I used to ask my history classes this. Generally after a long debate, they usually came up with the same answer I did.
Hitler didn't arise in a vacuum. He came to power in a very specific climate. If the Monster in charge didn't have the name "Hitler", it would have been "Schwartz." Post WW1 Germany would most likely have fallen into the hands of a xenophobic monster.
Would I take the chance that it might be a less bad monster than Hitler? I honestly don't know.
2007-09-21 05:13:32 · answer #5 · answered by Laptop Jesus 3.9 7 · 6⤊ 0⤋
No because that war led to the first time we used the nuclear bomb. If an opposing country had that same power the first time we used it (without knowing the long term affects of radiation) and they also bombed us well who knows how many more would have died from long term affects.
Also the jews probably should have fought back harder. Sorry if that offends anyone but 6 mil is alot of people say only 1 mil were strong adult males that would still be one hell of a force to fight against. Perhaps they should have died getting on the train fighting to stay off rather than after they reached the destination.
2007-09-21 05:17:51 · answer #6 · answered by deztructshun 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋
There was a Twilight Zone about this a few years ago -- they switched babies and killed the first -- and the 2nd one grew up to be the Hitler of the history books. What happens, happens. Having said that, pass the Glock.
2007-09-21 05:13:35 · answer #7 · answered by herfinator 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
If Hitler was killed??? what a good question.
Hmmm... as bad as it sounds.... someone else would have replaced him... and continue the aniliation of millions of people! if it didn't happen right after Hitler dying,,,, it might happen many years later.
A lot of people in those days... had a lot of hatred for others... jewish or not... there was a lot of hatred.
so... to answer you question, sure. but... why didn't anyone step up to the plate then??? there were countless of opportunities for him to be assinated. But no one cared to save those who were threatened?
2007-09-21 07:24:31 · answer #8 · answered by movngfwd 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
no. Not Hitler. Belive it or not, but if it wasn't for him, we may have lost the war. because he spent so much time and energy on killing poeple, he didn't fight the war the way his Genrals wanted. His Genrals wanted him to worry about the pest latter, even give them a chance to fight for Germany. But Hitler wanted them dead, so he wasted resources and soilders on it.
I know what Hitler did was the worse thing I can think of, but it would have happened worse if he didn't do it during the war. So, unless you could kill him during his childhood... and if you know doing wouldn't run the depression deeper, then I would. I would have blown out his knees, then his arms, then I would have taken him and bled him to death.
2007-09-21 06:18:52 · answer #9 · answered by Freq, Grandparent of Y!A 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Knowing what I know now and being as old as I currently am, I'd do it in a heartbeat.
Here's a bit of relevant trivia. I'm sure you know about the assassination attempt against Hitler, using explosives. It failed and dozens of high ranking Nazis were implicated in the plot, tortured cruelly and executed. Were you aware that the physicist Max Planck, for whom Planck's constant is named, had a son named Ernst who was part of the plot? The epitaph on Ernst Planck's tombstone reads, "Dogma is the last refuge of ignorance." I once read (can't remember where) Max Plank claimed that his son considered himself a secret atheist, hiding within a forest of Catholics.
2007-09-21 05:24:27 · answer #10 · answered by Diogenes 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋