Given a chance would you kill baby Hitler?

[Rhondazvous]

And did that war involve a complete repopulation of the geographic region that then became known as Germany? I'm not talking about the geopolitical designations. I'm talking about the people. Did the Germans people just all the sudden pop up in 1871? Did they rush in from somewhere else and supplant the Prussians?

First, Germany is still as federal and diverse as they come. Secondly, compare German antisemitism to contemporary antisemitism and you come up with the same picture in every country, except the Osmanic empire. In fact, the first ones to kill jews on German soil were the French crusaders of 1096.

Persecution in thge Western parts of what was Russia back in the 19th century was much worse. But that's an entirely different story.

I think we're getting on the same page here. There were 36 independent German states and there was a Napoleonic era in Germany. Yet it says German states and German territories. So I'm wondering, at what point did the name German arise? Were the demographics in 19th century Germany markedly different from the people who followed Hitler?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hep-Hep_riots

[abaris]

There were 36 independent German states and there was a Napoleonic era in Germany. Yet it says German states and German territories. So I'm wondering, at what point did the name German arise? Were the demographics in 19th century Germany markedly different from the people who followed Hitler?

There were over a 100 independent territories before Napoleon, as far as I remember from the top of my head. Some very small, some more powerful. German nationalism only did rise with Napoleon's conquest. Very slowly, and only among the elites. The demographics might not have been that different, but the mindset certainly was. For one, it depended on the particular ruler, how liberal or oppressive his regime was and how he treated minorities. Secondly, the people hadn't lost a war, didn't go through hyper inflation and the big crash of 1929 and didn't carry the same kind of resentment. The treaty of Versailes was considered a great injustice throughout the board. That's one thing, communists, socialists, nationalists, conservatives and the Nazis had in common.

For some misconceptions about Germany, you should look up Prussia. It's mostly associated with militarism, but that's not what it stood for. Oh yes, it was an absolute monarchy, but also strongly influenced by enlightenment. Frederick the Great fought his wars for territorial gain - they all did, but he also invited the French philosophers to his court and granted absolute religious freedoms. Which was a rarity at the time.

[Anomalocaris]

The treaty of Versailes was considered a great injustice throughout the board. That's one thing, communists, socialists, nationalists, conservatives and the Nazis had in common.

Considering what the Germans thought would have been just to impose on France in the September Program, and what they evidently thought was just to actually impose on Russia at Breast Litovsk, how Germans regarded what is just to themselves vs what they thought just for others must represent a very unique point of view.

The Germans clearly thought they deserved much more consideration in their own defeat that they would have thought proper to grant to others had they been victorious. There is little doubt Versailles pales next to anything the Germans would have Imposed had they won.

[robvalue]

After all the other things I'd do to it, it would be inhumane not to kill it.

[Angrboda]

If I were to kill the Hitler baby, I'd be making several assumptions about how my act would affect history (if at all). I could not sufficiently justify those assumptions to make taking an innocent human life justified. There are simply too many assumptions.

[IATIA]

There was potential for Hitler to win. Killing him as a child would have left the spot open for perhaps someone worse that did not have the shortcomings of Hitler. I would think that any attempt to change history could be devastating.

[Anomalocaris]

I think people place too much emphasis on hitler's personal shortcomings as commander in chief as a reason for Germany lossing the war.   I think once started, Germany was overwhelmingly favored to lose the war even if she was led by fully competent military and national leadership.

I think the unlikely part was Germany achieving the magnitude of her initial diplomatic and military successes between 1936 and 1941, not that she would inexorbly be defeated after 1942.

So I think without hitler, it is much more likely that Germany would not have ever thought she could gain by risking a European war during the late 1930s, and so the tension in Europe would not have boiled over.  If war is avoided in late 1930s and early 1940s, I think Germany's relative strength would only decline afterwards.   So she would be even less likely to seek or risk war later.

[Rhondazvous]

There were 36 independent German states and there was a Napoleonic era in Germany. Yet it says German states and German territories. So I'm wondering, at what point did the name German arise? Were the demographics in 19th century Germany markedly different from the people who followed Hitler?

There were over a 100 independent territories before Napoleon, as far as I remember from the top of my head. Some very small, some more powerful. German nationalism only did rise with Napoleon's conquest. Very slowly, and only among the elites. The demographics might not have been that different, but the mindset certainly was. For one, it depended on the particular ruler, how liberal or oppressive his regime was and how he treated minorities. Secondly, the people hadn't lost a war, didn't go through hyper inflation and the big crash of 1929 and didn't carry the same kind of resentment. The treaty of Versailes was considered a great injustice throughout the board. That's one thing, communists, socialists, nationalists, conservatives and the Nazis had in common.

For some misconceptions about Germany, you should look up Prussia. It's mostly associated with militarism, but that's not what it stood for. Oh yes, it was an absolute monarchy, but also strongly influenced by enlightenment. Frederick the Great fought his wars for territorial gain - they all did, but he also invited the French philosophers to his court and granted absolute religious freedoms. Which was a rarity at the time.

In Wikipedia, both the pages for Prussia and Frederick the Great contain the word German more than 100 times. You say you remembered these things off the top of your head. Did you study this as a subject in college?

[Rhondazvous]

If I could prevent the Holocaust by killing baby Hitler, that would mean Hitler doesn't have to grow up to be a killer, so killing him is not my only alternative to keep the Holocaust from happening.

[abaris]

In Wikipedia, both the pages for Prussia and Frederick the Great contain the word German more than 100 times. You say you remembered these things off the top of your head. Did you study this as a subject in college?

I studied history. But my degree paper was about German colonial associations and their publications. I majored in 20th century European history, so I know more on that than on previous centuries.

Yes, and why shouldn't they say German when talking about what we now know as Germany? Doesn't mean, it was a homogenous nation back then. German nationalism only rose in the wake of Napoleon. But that didn't prevent the different German dominions to wage wars against each other. The last one in 1866, when some of them were allied with Austria and others with Prussia.

What they mean by German is a shared language, and only to some degree, culture, since that is still vastly different in different parts of Germany.