Random questions because I am interested in opinions 1.

Read the post first please.


  • Total voters
    9

The Grand Teki

Well-Known Member
Feb 17, 2017
1,335
1,233
520
UESO hq.
IMPORTANT! This post is not aimed to be controversial or offensive, just a random question by me.

If you could prevent the second world war by somehow "neutralising" Hitler, how would you do it? (assuming that the world would stay the same but more advanced economics, no WWII deaths, etc.)

Choose one in the poll from the options below:
Aggressively or peacefully?
When he's young or older?
Directly (personally) or indirectly (telling someone to do something differently with him)?
 

HappyApathy

Well-Known Member
Dec 1, 2015
399
519
505
I wouldn't.

As crappy as World War II was at least we know the 'good guys' came out on top. Removing Hitler doesn't change the underlying reasons about why WWII happened, the rise of Fascism, the resentment by Germany against the Treaty of Versailles, the economic collapse during the Great Depression, fear against the rise of communism, etc. Hitler simply served as a conduit for what was likely an inevitable outcome, removing him just makes room for another demagogue to channel Germany's frustrations. WWII was a product of events far greater then one megalomaniac dictator and will still happen with or without him.

What if the person who replaces Hitler and is able to channel Germany's nationalist furor proves to be just as evil but more competent in carrying out his atrocities? What if removing Hitler causes the Second World War to be fought against the USSR instead of the Third Reich (a scenario more frighteningly plausible then you might think) and you end up with a war far bigger and costlier then the one you sought to prevent? As terrible as the events of WWII were I would prefer the certainty of the outcome we have then risking it for a near unpredictable outcome that could be far worse.
 
Last edited:

ZenithEevee

Procrastinator of the New World Order
Oct 20, 2016
215
342
475
22
'Murica
Allow him into art collage, Make a different country be the big debtor of WW1, Or you know. Just prevent ww1, that way there'd be no germanic depression and ww2 wouldn't happen the way it did.
 

HappyApathy

Well-Known Member
Dec 1, 2015
399
519
505
While Red Alert is filled with all sorts of crazy fantastical science the overall premise behind it was quite a real possibility (the world against the USSR, instead of Fascist Germany). Basically in our timeline the Nazi's beat the USSR to the punch when it came to launching a bid for world domination, the removal of Fascist Germany, or just simply a delay in it's advancement could have very well resulted in WWII been fought against USSR, potentially even with Nazi Germany been on the side of the allies instead.

Allow him into art collage, Make a different country be the big debtor of WW1, Or you know. Just prevent ww1, that way there'd be no germanic depression and ww2 wouldn't happen the way it did.
The factors that played into WWI made it an inevitability just as it's outcome made WWII inevitable as well, you can't just say "stop WWI from happening" as you are essentially asking for an alternate reality of history going back a few centuries at least that is wholly alien to our own that we wouldn't even recognize. The system of alliances, imperialistic mindsets, and massive build up of weapons on an industrial scale pretty much meant WWI would have happened eventually regardless. If Archduke Ferdinand hadn't been assassinated something else would have eventually set everything off, the alliances and battle lines may have been different but the scale and brutality of it would still be the same. There are somethings in history that build up to a point where they pretty much have to happen in some form or another.
 

The Grand Teki

Well-Known Member
Feb 17, 2017
1,335
1,233
520
UESO hq.
I wouldn't.

As crappy as World War II was at least we know the 'good guys' came out on top. Removing Hitler doesn't change the underlying reasons about why WWII happened, the rise of Fascism, the resentment by Germany against the Treaty of Versailles, the economic collapse during the Great Depression, fear against the rise of communism, etc. Hitler simply served as a conduit for what was likely an inevitable outcome, removing him just makes room for another demagogue to channel Germany's frustrations. WWII was a product of events far greater then one megalomaniac dictator and will still happen with or without him.

What if the person who replaces Hitler and is able to channel Germany's nationalist furor proves to be just as evil but more competent in carrying out his atrocities? What if removing Hitler causes the Second World War to be fought against the USSR instead of the Third Reich (a scenario more frighteningly plausible then you might think) and you end up with a war far bigger and costlier then the one you sought to prevent? As terrible as the events of WWII were I would prefer the certainty of the outcome we have then risking it for a near unpredictable outcome that could be far worse.
No, probably not. So many modern day advancements came out of that war, the world today wouldn't be the same without it. I'd just let that happen as it did, it wouldn't be worth fixing all of the damage not having the war would have done.
I have to agree. Without the war, we might not have computers, jet engines, rockets or nuclear technology as advanced as what we have now, amongst other things.
(assuming that the world would stay the same but more advanced economics, no WWII deaths, etc.)
 

HappyApathy

Well-Known Member
Dec 1, 2015
399
519
505
(assuming that the world would stay the same but more advanced economics, no WWII deaths, etc.)
At this point your thought exercise loses its teeth as you remove any consideration for the ramifications that removing Hitler would have, or frankly any reason for his removal in the first place cause if this is a world where WWII doesn't happen, what is the point in removing Hitler? His removal alone doesn't stop WWII, while changing the world conditions that caused WWII prevents his rise to power in the first place (a fairer Treaty of Versailles, a stronger Weimar Republic, the US joins the League of Nations, Tsar Nicholas II decides to stop been an ass to his people, etc), at which point your arguing about how you should murder some poor art student wanna-be.

If your question is "how would you remove Hitler while ignoring the consequences" then it's more an exercise in sadism where the use of Hitler is more of a morale excuse to justify the removal (likely murder) of a person while ignoring his actual impact upon history. You might as well change your question to "if you were going to kill someone you don't like, how would you do it assuming there are no consequences?" If your going to ask a question like you have then you should do it in it's historical context otherwise your just asking for ways to murder a person.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lord Zarnox

JuanPinoy

Well-Known Member
Sep 13, 2017
175
167
445
www.youtube.com
OOOH Sci-fi Territory

I may do kill Hitler

I'll consider four points from Sci-fi novels and stories I've read over the years
1. The Butterfly Effect - Killing Hitler May or May Not prevent World War Two from happening at all.
2. Pivotal Moment In History - Moments which define a race in their history.
3. Timeline Integrity - Events that happened will happen.
4. Multiverse Theory - From now on the possibilities are ENDLESS

1. Butterfly Effect - Okay so Hitler may be the most prominent figure in World War Two but he is not the ONLY leader. Killing Hitler may give rise to another person rising up in power who may even be WORSE than Hitler. It would be like choosing between two evils but not knowing which evil is greater. Let us take a theoretical person named Buster. Buster was once a classmate of Hitler who shared his views and supported him. But after Hilter's death he becomes paranoid and hatches a long plan to rule the world in say 10 years. Buster gathers support not in public but in secret. Spies are planted in key positions in opposing countries, knives poised to strike. Plans are made to sow distrust and chaos at a moments notice.

2. Pivotal Moment - WWII is basically a result of the events and aftermath of WWI. You may liken it to a safety release of a pressurized vessel leaking pressure before it goes ballistic.

3. Timeline Integrity - killing Hitler would not even stop WWII from happening

4. Multiverse Theory - WWII may not happen but other "wars" might.
 

The Grand Teki

Well-Known Member
Feb 17, 2017
1,335
1,233
520
UESO hq.
OOOH Sci-fi Territory

I may do kill Hitler

I'll consider four points from Sci-fi novels and stories I've read over the years
1. The Butterfly Effect - Killing Hitler May or May Not prevent World War Two from happening at all.
2. Pivotal Moment In History - Moments which define a race in their history.
3. Timeline Integrity - Events that happened will happen.
4. Multiverse Theory - From now on the possibilities are ENDLESS

1. Butterfly Effect - Okay so Hitler may be the most prominent figure in World War Two but he is not the ONLY leader. Killing Hitler may give rise to another person rising up in power who may even be WORSE than Hitler. It would be like choosing between two evils but not knowing which evil is greater. Let us take a theoretical person named Buster. Buster was once a classmate of Hitler who shared his views and supported him. But after Hilter's death he becomes paranoid and hatches a long plan to rule the world in say 10 years. Buster gathers support not in public but in secret. Spies are planted in key positions in opposing countries, knives poised to strike. Plans are made to sow distrust and chaos at a moments notice.

2. Pivotal Moment - WWII is basically a result of the events and aftermath of WWI. You may liken it to a safety release of a pressurized vessel leaking pressure before it goes ballistic.

3. Timeline Integrity - killing Hitler would not even stop WWII from happening

4. Multiverse Theory - WWII may not happen but other "wars" might.
upload_2017-11-7_19-34-20.png