Let's Kill Hitler

[David Conwill]

This is a really fascinating topic, and I’m mainly posting to follow the discussion. I like Lizzie’s very thoughtful treatment.

My only question, though, is how does Joseph McCarthy lie about his record in a war that never occurs?

Or is it that he claims to have fought the Japanese in the Pacific at all...?

 

[LizzieMaine]

He claims to have fought in the World War -- and is so convincing nobody stops to think that he would have only been ten years old. "I was big for my age," he insists. "I started shaving at 7."

 

[David Conwill]

He claims to have fought in the World War -- and is so convincing nobody stops to think that he would have only been ten years old. "I was big for my age," he insists. "I started shaving at 7."

Ha! I love it.

 

[Nobert]

I still think of WW2 as Round Two of a fight that began in August 1914. It would be much better to prevent WW1. On the surface this should not be hard to do, as the whole thing was the result of a trivial crime and should never have happened. But I am not sure about the forces behind the scene that may have been looking for any pretext to start a war...

Based on what I've read, which is very little, the fact that such a seemingly isolated incident ignited mass conflict is itself indicative of how primed the world powers were for said conflict. Throughout the Edwardian era, the major players in Europe were vying for dominance, military might was glorified, and Wilhelm was rattling his saber at anyone within earshot. America was flirting with ambitions towards Empire, Czar Nicholas was dying to be taken seriously by the big boys, attempted peace negotiations at The Hague had trouble getting traction, and the unrest brought about by fledgling socialist and anarchist movements was fanning the flames. I should point out, all the above comes mainly from The Proud Tower, the only real reading I've done on the subject, and which may be historically refuted by other sources for all I know.

 

[David Conwill]

The "Powder Keg" Theory of WWI was what they were still teaching when I was in high school and college. Arms races, competing industrial sectors, and the anti-imperial unrest made war all but inevitable. The assassination Archduke Franz Ferdinand was merely the spark which touched the whole thing off.

I think avoiding WWII is far more plausible.

 

[Edward]

The Balkans was an absolute tinderbox in 1914, with the mix of imperial interests. If it hadn't been Franz Ferdinand (who ultimately died because of his own vanity, tho I suspect things would have been little different had Pricep shot but failed to kill him), it would have been something else.

 

[LoveMyHats2]

Very interesting idea, getting rid of one of the most evil individuals that ever lived.

In the past few years, conversations in out household regarding Hitler surfaced a line of thinking, "what if Hitler would have used all that mindset to do good works, instead of bad"? You have to admit, he was able to do what many would never have been able to do. Just is, what he did do was just pure evil. Can you imagine how different many things would have been?

A few deep thinking minds of our current generation have explained how "time" is more or less like a record, it has a groove, a start for each of us in life. That we cannot go into the future, but we could have a chance to go to the past. That if a person makes some drastic changes to what we do as an individual, the outcome of the "big picture" for us as an individual, would not result in too much difference to the larger picture of the rest of the world.

I also think we have a few individuals alive today that are in as much "deep" evil as Hitler was. The Media however, loves them.

 

[HudsonHawk]

I also think we have a few individuals alive today that are in as much "deep" evil as Hitler was. The Media however, loves them.

Care to list a few examples? I'm genuinely curious.

 

[LizzieMaine]

The "Powder Keg" Theory of WWI was what they were still teaching when I was in high school and college. Arms races, competing industrial sectors, and the anti-imperial unrest made war all but inevitable. The assassination Archduke Franz Ferdinand was merely the spark which touched the whole thing off.

I think avoiding WWII is far more plausible.

That and the network of international alliances stretching back to the 19th century. The best explanation of World War I I've ever read is this one. I wish I had written it myself -- I don't know who did, but whoever did is a genius.

IF WORLD WAR I WAS A BAR FIGHT

Germany, Austria and Italy are standing together in the middle of a pub when Serbia bumps into Austria and spills Austria’s pint.

Austria demands Serbia buy it a whole new suit because of the new beer stains on its trouser leg.

Germany expresses its support for Austria’s point of view.

Britain recommends that everyone calm down a bit.

Serbia points out that it can’t afford a whole suit, but offers to pay for the cleaning of Austria’s trousers.

Russia and Serbia look at Austria.

Austria asks Serbia who it’s looking at.

Russia suggests that Austria should leave its little brother alone.

Austria inquires as to whose army will assist Russia in doing so.

Germany appeals to Britain that France has been looking at it, and that its sufficiently out of order that Britain not intervene.

Britain replies that France can look at who it wants to, that Britain is looking at Germany too, and what is Germany going to do about it?

Germany tells Russia to stop looking at Austria, or Germany will render Russia incapable of such action anymore.

Britain and France ask Germany whether it’s looking at Belgium.

Turkey and Germany go off into a corner and whisper. When they come back, Turkey makes a show of not looking at anyone.

Germany rolls up its sleeves, looks at France, and punches Belgium.

France and Britain punch Germany. Austria punches Russia. Germany punches Britain and France with one hand and Russia with the other.

Russia throws a punch at Germany, but misses and nearly falls over. Japan calls over from the other side of the room that it’s on Britain’s side, but stays there. Italy surprises everyone by punching Austria.

Australia punches Turkey, and gets punched back. There are no hard feelings because Britain made Australia do it.

France gets thrown through a plate glass window, but gets back up and carries on fighting. Russia gets thrown through another one, gets knocked out, suffers brain damage, and wakes up with a complete personality change.

Italy throws a punch at Austria and misses, but Austria falls over anyway. Italy raises both fists in the air and runs round the room chanting.

America waits till Germany is about to fall over from sustained punching from Britain and France, then walks over and smashes it with a barstool, then pretends it won the fight all by itself.

By now all the chairs are broken and the big mirror over the bar is shattered. Britain, France and America agree that Germany threw the first punch, so the whole thing is Germany’s fault . While Germany is still unconscious, they go through its pockets, steal its wallet, and buy drinks for all their friends.

 

[scottyrocks]

Care to list a few examples? I'm genuinely curious.

That's probably not a good idea here.

 

[HudsonHawk]

That's probably not a good idea here.

I guess it would depend on how people respond and in what context, but you're right, that's probably not a good idea.

 

[LizzieMaine]

The two who really come to mind for me are Mark Zuckerberg and Bud Selig, but that's as far as I think we need to go.

 

[cchgn]

Imo, killing Hitler woudln't change a thing. If not Hitler, then someone else. The best thing to change history is to prevent the Depression, it was a world wide Depression, no other ideology would have been able to stick.

Btw someone mentioned world outcry for an invasion or something. The world was different then, there was no UN, folks were more isolationistic( because of the depression).

 

[scottyrocks]

Imo, killing Hitler woudln't change a thing. If not Hitler, then someone else. The best thing to change history is to prevent the Depression, it was a world wide Depression, no other ideology would have been able to stick.

Btw someone mentioned world outcry for an invasion or something. The world was different then, there was no UN, folks were more isolationistic( because of the depression).

I don't think I agree with this. Oft times it takes just that one 'right' charismatic character to push events one way or another. Someone above suggested that without the Hitler-nut-personality (my term) embodied in that person, things could have, and probably would have been very different.

 

[jamespowers]

No politics, please.

You are a little late there. lol lol

 

[V.C. Brunswick]

If Facebook existed during WWII. lol
http://i.imgur.com/s9x7u.jpg

 

[vitanola]

Care to list a few examples? I'm genuinely curious.

Oh, yes. Do.

 

[vintageTink]

Not really something we can discuss here, considering the no politics rules. One might contend that neither Mao or Stalin were actually communists. But we do know Hitler was a Nazi.

No politics, please.

You are a little late there. lol lol

Indeed.

A tad unfair to not be able to reply, as the original post IS a political post. But I won't argue.

 

[HudsonHawk]

Indeed.

A tad unfair to not be able to reply, as the original post IS a political post. But I won't argue.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the "no politics" rule is geared towards discussions about current political philosophy and policy, no? That discussion of politics in a historical context, specifically as it applies to "the Era" are fine? There's a difference in bringing up "Nazis" in a discussion of healthcare laws and bringing up "Nazis" in a discussion of the effects of WWII on the historical development of social attitudes of the 1930's and 40's, for example. I'd like to think we could all stay on the proper side of that line, but maybe not.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the "no politics" rule is geared towards discussions about current political philosophy and policy, no? That discussion of politics in a historical context, specifically as it applies to "the Era" are fine? There's a difference in bringing up "Nazis" in a discussion of healthcare laws and bringing up "Nazis" in a discussion of the effects of WWII on the historical development of social attitudes of the 1930's and 40's, for example. I'd like to think we could all stay on the proper side of that line, but maybe not.

We discuss historical events here all the time, and always have. It'd be a pretty dull place if all we did was prate on and on about zippers.

My original post was speculation based on how historical events might unfold with Old Nasty deleted from the picture. I don't see any way in which that relates to current politics -- you'll note that my projection reaches no further than the early 1970s, and I avoided a number of possible outcomes that might possibly relate to the current political scene. (A lot of what has happened in and since the 1980s would likely not occur, for example, under my No-Hitler scenario.)

I've also offered a second speculation based on the removal of Mr. Dzhugashvili from the picture, again based on what I think is a plausible progression of events down to the 1950s. Anyone else is free to post a progression of their own based on their own speculation and their own understanding of early-to-mid 20th Century history. That's the point of the discussion.

As far as the initial target of my historical deletion is concerned, well, "Killing Hitler" is and has always been the classic alternative-history trope. I didn't make it up, I just ran with it.