lifeisshort
Banned
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2014
- Messages
- 1,337
- Reaction score
- 421
- Location
- the high desert
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
From what I understand it might have made sense to eliminate him before he was able to instigate WWII, but once the war started it was probably best to let him stay in charge since strategically he was Germany's own worst enemy.
Something I'm not entirely clear on myself is, how responsible is Hitler personally for the events that led to WWII and the Holocaust? Did he simply ride a tidal wave of historical events? Or did he shape the thoughts of the time so specifically that those events never would have happened had he not lived?
I'm not opposed to assassination in some cases, but one of the problems with it is that when there is an established power structure, the next bozo just steps into the vacated place... and in many cases he may be as bad or worse.
The people of Germany LOVED Hitler and blaming of the Jews. However, had Hitler not come in to power, someone else could have. And that might have made things worse in the war. Hitler was absolutely OBSESSED with Napolean and even was trying to mimic his failed strategies. If someone else had risen to power besides Hitler, they might have been even more successful and could have won WWII.
So many possibilities that could have made things swing the outcome in many ways.
I agree. Is it ever the right thing to do? Certainly, but I hope the one planning the assassinating has done their homework and has a really good goddamn idea of the dominoes that'll topple once the dictator has been killed. One such homework assignment would be, why the hell hasn't Kim Jong-Un been assassinated by now, and if he was, would anything even improve?
Sure, but were the ideas of Jewish persecution and invading the rest of Europe exclusively his own, or were those already highly popular sentiments in the national dialogue?
Sure, but were the ideas of Jewish persecution and invading the rest of Europe exclusively his own, or were those already highly popular sentiments in the national dialogue?
Looking at the popularity of it, I don't think these thoughts were Hitler's alone. Again, that's just my opinion.
I'm not opposed to assassination in some cases, but one of the problems with it is that when there is an established power structure, the next bozo just steps into the vacated place... and in many cases he may be as bad or worse.
Hitler has the charisma and the evil to make the worst of Germany bubble to the surfaces. IMO if he had been stopped in his rise to power we would have had a different and better world
From what I understand it might have made sense to eliminate him before he was able to instigate WWII, but once the war started it was probably best to let him stay in charge since strategically he was Germany's own worst enemy.
Something I'm not entirely clear on myself is, how responsible is Hitler personally for the events that led to WWII and the Holocaust? Did he simply ride a tidal wave of historical events? Or did he shape the thoughts of the time so specifically that those events never would have happened had he not lived?
I know what you're trying to do here - in your claim Obama is another Hitler it might justify taking him out now in his rise to power, that's it right?
I know what you're trying to do here - in your claim Obama is another Hitler it might justify taking him out now in his rise to power, that's it right?
saddam*cough*iraq*cough
So transparent. And a new thread comparing Obama to Chavez after the other one got sent downstairs....
Free up some space in your mailbox, AW
Absolutely. Before employing assassination as a tool, you've got to know what the result will be and whether it will help or harm overall. Only way to justify it.
Yeah. Saddam was bad, but his boys would likely have been worse.
And yeah, our regime change there isn't working out as well as hoped. There's just a whole lotta Stupid to go around in that region, anddamn little Live and Let Live.
According to what I've read there's been a severe shortage of live and let live in the Middle East since long before Jesus Christ died on the cross.
This is a good question, and one that isn't 100% answered to this day.
But going by what I've read, I think the evil in his cabinet was at the very least equal, and quite likely much worse than Hitler himself. And they certainly had better ability to make it happen -- as you say, in many ways Hitler was his own worst enemy.
Hitler was rather crap at the business of running Germany, and not much a general either. He was disorganized and a bit mad and really, it seems as though his cabinet spent more time going around him than through him.
No doubt Hitler hated the Jews and various other types of people and was more than happy to see a plan to have them killed, but whether he even had a big hand in designing the Final Solution is still an open question. We do know with fair certainty that he didn't go into it with any kind of genocidal plan. And to all appearances, it wasn't initially put together as a plan at all -- it sort of slowly came together, piece by piece.
I think Hitler was probably too incompetent to be the main source of deed behind Nazi Germany. I think the likes of say, Goebbels or Himmler is a much more likely main force. It's a bit of a shame that the memorability of Hitler has overshadowed that, and that few people know their names and the kinds of things they did.
Assassination really isn't the best way to bring down a "regime," or a political movement, because both of these things tend to be larger than just one man.
In point of fact, the man up top is often little more than a charismatic figurehead for the bureaucratic and ideological machinery underneath. What's worse, killing that figurehead can have a tendency to turn them into a martyr, and lend further credence to the ideas they represented in life.
Just look at what happened after Julius Caesar's assassination, for instance, or Mahatma Ghandi's. Even without the man, their ideas were powerful and deeply rooted enough to reassert themselves. If anything, these assassinations backfired on the people who planned them, and they did so in rather spectacular fashion.
At the end of the day, assassination is best reserved for people who are primarily dangerous on an individual basis, or as a means of denying the enemy access to certain individuals with skill sets or knowledge which could potentially be used against you. If want to take down the enemy itself, you're going to have to opt for a more forceful approach.
Assassination really isn't the best way to bring down a "regime," or a political movement, because both of these things tend to be larger than just one man.
In point of fact, the man up top is often little more than a charismatic figurehead for the bureaucratic and ideological machinery underneath. What's worse, killing that figurehead can have a tendency to turn them into a martyr, and lend further credence to the ideas they represented in life.
Just look at what happened after Julius Caesar's assassination, for instance, or Mahatma Ghandi's. Even without the man, their ideas were powerful and deeply rooted enough to reassert themselves. If anything, these assassinations backfired on the people who planned them, and they did so in rather spectacular fashion.
At the end of the day, assassination is best reserved for people who are primarily dangerous on an individual basis, or as a means of denying the enemy access to certain individuals with skill sets or knowledge which could potentially be used against you. If want to take down the enemy itself, you're going to have to opt for a more forceful approach.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?