WWII kill Hitler first?

Question

I understand why Hitler and Hindenburg did what they did in WWII. I understand what they did. I have a very big understanding of history and i enjoy to learn more about history. My question is this... If someone truly knew that +6,000,000 Jews, Homosexuals, Gypsies, Catholics... would be killed in WWII. And this person was like 10 years before this would happen is it just to kill Hitler to stop what would later happen? The Jews and other ethnic/religious groups were more or less forced into slavery and then execution. So isn't it better to kill Hitler before this can happen. I know an "Eye for an Eye, Tooth for a Tooth" is considered wrong, and that killing one life is not a good this and that killing is still killing. If you want to answer this in a religious perspective or just a simple answer please tell me which. If your answer is based off of a certain religions teachings please say. This is a very hard question and i think that every answer is opinion based. I see it as one life is better to kill then having 6,000,000 but killing is killing no matter the amount. If killing 1 is better then killing 6,000,000 where does that end. Is killing 100,000 better then 1. Is killing 1 better then 2, i mean there has to be a limit. Can that limit be made by humans i don't know. Thanks for any help you can give and I understand if you cant.

Answer 1

I'm a spiritual person who fellowships with Christians and I used to call myself a Buddhist.



Your question is of course a difficult one, I tend to try look at any questions to do with suffering in a very pragmatic way



Ffor instance, I've chosen not to consume meat or wear animal skin because I feel that i can currently live my life with sufficient happiness and healthiness without causing such suffering to animals. However if my life is at risk, I put it before that of any animals because I feel that I have more potential to alleviate suffering than any animal.



If I were to transfer this theory to your question I'd have to say that killing a person like Hitler could be a reasonably argued, God can judge me as He sees fit.



You are right though to ask where does it stop. but I'm not sure it's reasonable to assume that one would have to kill so many people in order to save any number of more people, usually there is a leader of course.

Answer 2

The world war resulted in the death of upwards of 70 million people worldwide, but it also created the world we live in. Hypothetically, if it was possible to go back and do away with Hitler before he came to power, who knows what far reaching consequences that would have (there may never have been a war on such a scale, but then its also possible there could have been an unknown number of minor wars and genocides, or an even larger one.).



The fighting in Asia would have still taken place. Although with a change in world diplomacy, who knows if it would have turned into the Pacific War as we know it. This somewhat indicates that one would have to go back in time and kill/murder a rather large bunch of people to significantly alter what happened during the 1930s-40s. Thus, would said hypothetical time traveler be any different from a common serial killer or the people responsible for the genocides that would take place?



As horrible as it all was, if it were possible, I would say leave it alone and don't change a thing.

Answer 3

Well if someone did kill Hitler before he did all the stuff he did, it would affect everything else( US could still be in the Dust Bull, no nuclear warfare, so on).

As for the second question, I cannot help you.

Answer 4

There are rumours that an attempt to assassinate Hitler was considered and that Churchill objected, saying 'it's not cricket', meaning it is not honest or moral [to assassinate a foreign head of state].

As I said, this is a rumour without much foundation.

Today one might make a similar remark about bumping off a particularly nasty head of state. You can figure out to whom I am referring.

Answer 5

Killing someone before events occur seems to be a slippery slope. Killing someone who keeps slaughtering people would be a prudent act.

Answer 6

No his greed did, he would of took over the whole world if he was failed to be killed.