Given a chance would you kill baby Hitler?

[Thumpalumpacus]

Given the very narrow balances and jealousies of the Great Powers in the early 20th century, I think that war would have broken out sooner or later. Indeed, it was narrowly averted a couple of times leading up to the actual outbreak.

[abaris]

Given the very narrow balances and jealousies of the Great Powers in the early 20th century, I think that war would have broken out sooner or later. Indeed, it was narrowly averted a couple of times leading up to the actual outbreak.

Sooner or later being the operative word here. Also, consider the fundamental irony of that war. Wilhelm being a grandson of Queen Victoria, sitting at her deathbed. And as supposed by some WWI apologists, it never was a war between democracy and tyranny. All the countries involved had their parliaments. All the countries involved had their imperial ambitions. It was the last of the imperial wars. Noone had the superioriority of morals on their side. They all wanted to get even with another nation or they wanted to further their influence or they wanted to prevent another nation to get the upper hand.

Entirely futile among all the futile wars of history. Detremental to the further development of the 20th cnetury.

[Anomalocaris]

In ways effecting much larger numbers than the population of Europe, WWI was beneficial for the development of the 20th century. It is hard to imagine a Europe, complete in its self confidence and not weakened by 2 vicious bouts of self disembowments, would have relinquished any part of the colonial control it exercised over almost all of the world. WWI started the painful but ultimately beneficial reduction of European world hegemony.

[abaris]

In ways effecting much larger numbers than the population of Europe, WWI was beneficial for the development of the 20th century.   It is hard to imagine a Europe, complete in its self confidence and not weakened by 2 vicious bouts of self disembowments, would have relinquished any part of the colonial control it exercised over almost all of the world.   WWI started the painful but ultimately beneficial reduction of European world hegemony.

No, it wasn't. It only sparked nationalism and Europe cannibalisng itself. Over the decades, things would have taken a natural course. Just like the communist block in the 80ies. WWI and the ensuing treaties only sparked resentment and the ultimatel rise of Hitler and Mussolini. Also Japanese expansionism wouldn't have happened in the same way. They got bold in WWI.

There's nothing positive about WWI.l Only negatives on every side.

[Edwardo Piet]

@ OP

No I wouldn't. I don't believe in the simplistic mere aggregation of utilitarian ethics and the suffering of any innocent baby (and all babies are innocent regardless of what they become later in the future) is just as valid as the suffering of every other individual that suffered during the events of WWII.

[abaris]

Once again. Hitler's the symptome, not the cause.

[Edwardo Piet]

Hitler is indeed not the cause but I wouldn't say he was merely a symptom. He is certainly more than an epiphenomenon: He compounded/aggravated matters a lot!

Yes, it was a massive understatement.

[brewer]

Well, this went farther than I expected. Me,Hitler, I wouldn't kill.

I think this thread is about played out but lets take another abhorrent individual from history. What about Pol Pot?

[Anomalocaris]

In ways effecting much larger numbers than the population of Europe, WWI was beneficial for the development of the 20th century.   It is hard to imagine a Europe, complete in its self confidence and not weakened by 2 vicious bouts of self disembowments, would have relinquished any part of the colonial control it exercised over almost all of the world.   WWI started the painful but ultimately beneficial reduction of European world hegemony.

No, it wasn't. It only sparked nationalism and Europe cannibalisng itself. Over the decades, things would have taken a natural course. Just like the communist block in the 80ies. WWI and the ensuing treaties only sparked resentment and the ultimatel rise of Hitler and Mussolini. Also Japanese expansionism wouldn't have happened in the same way. They got bold in WWI.

There's nothing positive about WWI.l Only negatives on every side.

The natural course at the time was not for Europe to reduce colonial commitment leading to eventual ending of colonialism. Such nationalism as WWI sparked outside Europe as a driving force in ejecting weakened European powers from their colonies. So they were a positive outcome from WWI. Japanese expansion may not have happened the same way. But European domination in the area where Japan waged a relatively short lived expansion would likely have lasted much longer.

Yes, WWI was terrible for Europe. But terrible for Europe in 1914-1918 was ultimately good for the world.

[Edwardo Piet]

Well, this went farther than I expected. Me,Hitler, I wouldn't kill.

I think this thread is about played out but lets take another abhorrent individual from history. What about Pol Pot?

Wouldn't kill any dictator when they were an infant and for the same reasons.