So yeah this is a bit not-HOI specific but this is a very common "moral question" and i want your opinions on this, since you forum dwellers seem to be knowledgable about around WWII period.
So the question is, would you go back in time to kill Hitler? This question is often asked because that implies that killing Hitler would prevent ethnic exterminations and stop World War 2.
I would argue however, that Hitler is actually a 'good' figure not because he did good, but because he managed the rise of nazism just before nuclear weapons were invented.
See, Hitler did not invent nationalism nor anti-semitism nor social darwinism, and without him, I believe that nazism would not rise in 1930-1940 but Germany and rest of Europe would be a fertile ground for nazi ideologies into the 19-fifties and sixties, since nazism would not be banned, and there wouldn't be an example of how bad it is. It is very much possible that there would be someone more strategically competent than Hitler, who manages to orchestrate the rise of a nazi party in Europe, but in this scenario, nazism rises 10-20 years after our historical timeline, and in this world nukes have already been invented, so now you have WWII with nuclear armed nations... Which is potentially much worse than what happened in reality.
So my point is, nazism would probably rise without Hitler, but at a later date, when nuclear world war would be possible from the start.
I'd even argue that in order to stop 'evil' you should rather kill Stalin, since many competent Russians would... exist in a dead-Stalin timeline, which would make Russia a stronger nation, reducing the overall casualty count and perhaps prevent the cold war ?
So the question is, would you go back in time to kill Hitler? This question is often asked because that implies that killing Hitler would prevent ethnic exterminations and stop World War 2.
I would argue however, that Hitler is actually a 'good' figure not because he did good, but because he managed the rise of nazism just before nuclear weapons were invented.
See, Hitler did not invent nationalism nor anti-semitism nor social darwinism, and without him, I believe that nazism would not rise in 1930-1940 but Germany and rest of Europe would be a fertile ground for nazi ideologies into the 19-fifties and sixties, since nazism would not be banned, and there wouldn't be an example of how bad it is. It is very much possible that there would be someone more strategically competent than Hitler, who manages to orchestrate the rise of a nazi party in Europe, but in this scenario, nazism rises 10-20 years after our historical timeline, and in this world nukes have already been invented, so now you have WWII with nuclear armed nations... Which is potentially much worse than what happened in reality.
So my point is, nazism would probably rise without Hitler, but at a later date, when nuclear world war would be possible from the start.
I'd even argue that in order to stop 'evil' you should rather kill Stalin, since many competent Russians would... exist in a dead-Stalin timeline, which would make Russia a stronger nation, reducing the overall casualty count and perhaps prevent the cold war ?
- 3
