But don't say it out loud

You're viewing part of a thread.

Show Context

169 comments

No, it means the next guy to commit atrocities will have a different last name. Your cartoonish views on morality is tiring
- Gotcha, you would in fact let Hitler be.
  
  Well, what if the guy that took Hitlers place was every bit as evil, but wasn't a bumbling idiot in military matters? Worse yet, what if he gave his scientist budgets and told them to make super weapons with no real interference? The first atomic bomb could have dropped on Bristol or Leningrad, instead of Hiroshima
  
  It would take time for someone to take his place, which gives resistance time. It is a good thing to fight fascism.
  
  There was plenty of resistance to the Nazis rise to power, until the Nazis consolidated power and suppressed it. Any authoritarian leader in 1930s Germany would have done the same thing. Remember, if you're taking out Hitler before 1931, all the factors that allowed him to rise to power are still there, like the great depression and the treaty of Versailles. Anyone becoming a dictator during that time would have done so likely by some variation of Hilters playback with much the same results
  
  Yes, the liberals generally aligned with the fascists against the antifascist left. This consolidation of power did happen because of the material conditions in Weimar Germany, you are absolutely correct. However, that does not mean killing Hitler would have been worthless.
  History does not move by Great Man Theory, we agree on this. At the same time, fighting Nazi leaders does harm the Nazi movement.

169 comments