If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Question
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
I stole this from another forum so dont be thinking I'm original.
"If you had Hitler as a baby in your arms what would you do?"
Obviously knowing what he would do later on.
"If you had Hitler as a baby in your arms what would you do?"
Obviously knowing what he would do later on.
0
Comments
Which is worse? Killing a baby or killing thousands of jews.
If you don't kill him, then you will, passively, kill thousands of jews.
Or you could stop him from becoming a dictator and so on.
Hitler killed zillions of people because he believed them to be evil. You kill a baby because you believe it to be 'evil'. It just seems..wrong.
You dont think there is the possability for change?
the same goes for Lenin, if he had been assasinated or executed young and never committed such attrocities with the Russian state, the USSR would never have come to pass and Stalin would never have been able to kill 20 million Russians, etc!
Send him off to a Kibbutz.
For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
Why would a democratic Germany have been less effective than a Nazi one?
without the National socialists in Germany, or the Fallange in Spain, or the Fascisti in Italy Moscow would have subverted all these countries.
It was a case of fighting fire with fire and it worked.
No it didn't. It came as a result of WW1, the Versaille Treaty and economic depression. Germany and Italy were no where near falling to Communism.
In fact its probably more accurate to say that as many states weakened by the war fell to communism (eg Poland, Yugoslavia, the Baltic States) that Hitler helped communism and split Europe for fifty years.
Fair enough but only due to the fact that Hitler ultimately failed - But it didnt help matters that General Eisenhower, to the dismay of all around him halted the Allied advance through Germany so as to allow the Red Army to swallow up much of the Eastern territories .
A good upbringing would probably works...
Like many far-right idealogues you are overestimating what Prescott Bush did. He invested in German industry after the war and met several Nazi leaders a few times. This is not the same as ploughing money into the Nazi party.
Please do elaborate as I fail to see how someone [URL=http:////www.kirjasto.sci.fi/luxembur.htm]who was killed in 1919[/URL] was going to overthrow the state and introduce a communist dictatorship in 1933.
As the borders had already been agreed at Yalta he probably didn't see the point of loosing further British and American lives in a race for Berlin (which the USSR would probably still have won). Amd when you say the dismay of all around him, most people who knew anything about it agreed with him (with the exception of Patton who was showing growing signs of meglomania)
As for the Communist stranglehold, the Communists had the war in the bag in Spain until the Nazis supplied the Fascists with superior arms to fight against the crappy weapons the USSR supplied the Communists via Comintern or was it Comincom? i forget which but through one them. Those two organisations consolidated and centralised all of Communism around all of Europe and it was only rivarly from Fascists that stopped them taking over. That and after World War 2, Bristish troops fighting for Royalists and Loyalists in Greece, Italy, etc
The West didnt take Berlin or all of Germany not because of boundary lines at Yalta but because of the huge death toll that would have had to have been incurred to take the Capital, so the USSR was allowed to take it.
Back before the Nazi rise to power, the Communists were the dominant subvertive political group of Germany, but they had no combat training which is why they were suppressed so easily by the Freicorp, which was made up of former trench warfare soldiers of the Great War.
As for insignificant financial issues such as the Bush family investing money in the Nazis and profiting from such things as Auswitz, i do not see a need to comment on that. Every American investor made money from the Nazis, IBM single-handedley calculated the logistics of the Holocaust afterall!
The more interesting Question would be; if Lenin had been assasinated earlier in like so the was never ever a Bolshevik uprising and the was never the formation of the USSR under a communist regime, would there have been enough force in the world to stop the Nazis?
ZOG made me do it guvnor. :rolleyes:
But thats just me.
P.S. Why do people always ask "what if you could kill Hitler?" Stalin Killed so many more millions of people than Hitler ever did.
That means nothing, it was hardly because of Lenin that Stalin was a murdering cunt, it was Stalins fault he was a murdering cunt.
Hitler came to power legally, Stalin didnt.
A lot of things wouldn't have happened if a lot of people did x,y,z. Things happened, there's no point blaming the past for someone elses actions.
And Hitler didn't come to power legally...not in the technical sense anyway.
The civil war in Russia between the Bolshevik/Communists and the Tsarists and the independents was a time when millions died because Lenin gave a take no prisoners order, over 100,000 Kadets were thrown into blast furnaces to burn to death while still alive because of that order and they got off lightly compared to some of the attrocitied Lenin was responsible for. Millions died before Stalin ever even came to power as a result of the communists.
A democratic germany wouldn't even be armed anyway after the resolutions set in the treaty of versaille.
Hitler did come to power legally technically, as said above, he used his position as chancellor and president to remove democracy. Though he never recieved more than....i think his best was 39% of the vote, that's more than our Tony Blair got last election
On the subject of communism not being a threat to germany, well basically in the early years of the weimar republic it was more of a threat than nazism spartacist uprising 1919? It could even be argued that if the SPD could work with the KPD and din't have the bitter fued, then Nazism might never have come to power at all. That's chaos theory for you though
Just an opinion here, but i think of the Nazis never did exist, and the comminists did try to 'march through westward through europe', i'd like to think the allies could have stopped them. It's probable the USA would have been happy to join in this war earlier than the war with Germany.
It was about conforming, but he had no legal basis to make those people conform, he seized power illegally after he lost the national election in which the Bolshevik party came last of all. Total communism is designed to work in only one way which Trotsky supported. But it doesnt work at all, hence why so many were mass murdered to force its implimentation, though it never worked. no farmer wanted to work for nothing so thousands were put to death with their families, systematically executed.
The civil war, Lenin had a no prisoner order. The communists were the smallest and least armed BUT most centralised of the parties and united, thats why they won the civil war, they committed horrific atrocities. Lenin despite his promises of change, was a total power hungry hypocrit. He never planned to have equality, he and his loyal followers would always be superiors to everyone else and thats how he planned it. He promised to stop the secret police, but he just renamed them and used them for his own ends.
Stalin was a mental case mass murdering (20 million at least) power psycho and indeed was more evil then Lenin! but Lenin was still Crazy and evil!