• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is assasination ever called for

Is assasination ever the right thing to do

  • In some cases assasination is right

    Votes: 30 83.3%
  • assasination is never right EVER

    Votes: 6 16.7%

  • Total voters
    36

lifeisshort

Banned
Joined
Sep 14, 2014
Messages
1,337
Reaction score
421
Location
the high desert
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
If someone assassinated Hitler before he fully implemented his agenda the world would have been a lot better off IMO. What about you, is assassination ever okay?


February 1933
The German Reichstag is destroyed by fire. The plot and execution is almost certainly due to the Nazis but they point the finger at the communists and trigger a General Election.


March 1933
The Enabling Act passed—powers of legislation pass to Hitler’s cabinet for four years, making him virtual dictator.

He proclaims the Nazi Party is the only political party permitted in Germany. All other parties and trade unions are disbanded. Individual German states lose any autonomous powers, while Nazi officials become state governors.


April 1933
Communist party banned.


May 1933
Socialists, Trade Unions and strikes banned.


October 1933
Hitler withdraws from the League of Nations. In the following months, he trebles the size of the German Army and ignores the arms restrictions imposed by the Treaty of Versailles.


June 1934
Night of the Long Knives. Hitler crushes all opposition within his own party—thus eliminating any of his rivals.


July 1934
After the death of President Hindenburg, Hitler becomes “Fuehrer and Reich Chancellor” and abolishes the title of President.


1935
Hitler re-arms Germany with the aim of undoing the Treaty of Versailles and uniting all the German peoples. Military conscription is introduced.


March 1938
The Austrian Chancellor, leader of the Austrian Nazi Party, invites the German army to occupy Austria and proclaim a union with Germany.
 
From what I understand it might have made sense to eliminate him before he was able to instigate WWII, but once the war started it was probably best to let him stay in charge since strategically he was Germany's own worst enemy.

Something I'm not entirely clear on myself is, how responsible is Hitler personally for the events that led to WWII and the Holocaust? Did he simply ride a tidal wave of historical events? Or did he shape the thoughts of the time so specifically that those events never would have happened had he not lived?
 
I'm not opposed to assassination in some cases, but one of the problems with it is that when there is an established power structure, the next bozo just steps into the vacated place... and in many cases he may be as bad or worse.
 
From what I understand it might have made sense to eliminate him before he was able to instigate WWII, but once the war started it was probably best to let him stay in charge since strategically he was Germany's own worst enemy.

Something I'm not entirely clear on myself is, how responsible is Hitler personally for the events that led to WWII and the Holocaust? Did he simply ride a tidal wave of historical events? Or did he shape the thoughts of the time so specifically that those events never would have happened had he not lived?

The people of Germany LOVED Hitler and blaming of the Jews. However, had Hitler not come in to power, someone else could have. And that might have made things worse in the war. Hitler was absolutely OBSESSED with Napolean and even was trying to mimic his failed strategies. If someone else had risen to power besides Hitler, they might have been even more successful and could have won WWII.

So many possibilities that could have made things swing the outcome in many ways.
 
I'm not opposed to assassination in some cases, but one of the problems with it is that when there is an established power structure, the next bozo just steps into the vacated place... and in many cases he may be as bad or worse.

I agree. Is it ever the right thing to do? Certainly, but I hope the one planning the assassinating has done their homework and has a really good goddamn idea of the dominoes that'll topple once the dictator has been killed. One such homework assignment would be, why the hell hasn't Kim Jong-Un been assassinated by now, and if he was, would anything even improve?
 
The people of Germany LOVED Hitler and blaming of the Jews. However, had Hitler not come in to power, someone else could have. And that might have made things worse in the war. Hitler was absolutely OBSESSED with Napolean and even was trying to mimic his failed strategies. If someone else had risen to power besides Hitler, they might have been even more successful and could have won WWII.

So many possibilities that could have made things swing the outcome in many ways.

Sure, but were the ideas of Jewish persecution and invading the rest of Europe exclusively his own, or were those already highly popular sentiments in the national dialogue?
 
I agree. Is it ever the right thing to do? Certainly, but I hope the one planning the assassinating has done their homework and has a really good goddamn idea of the dominoes that'll topple once the dictator has been killed. One such homework assignment would be, why the hell hasn't Kim Jong-Un been assassinated by now, and if he was, would anything even improve?


Absolutely. Before employing assassination as a tool, you've got to know what the result will be and whether it will help or harm overall. Only way to justify it.
 
Sure, but were the ideas of Jewish persecution and invading the rest of Europe exclusively his own, or were those already highly popular sentiments in the national dialogue?

Looking at the popularity of it, I don't think these thoughts were Hitler's alone. Again, that's just my opinion.
 
Sure, but were the ideas of Jewish persecution and invading the rest of Europe exclusively his own, or were those already highly popular sentiments in the national dialogue?

By the way, I already know that antisemitic sentiments were already beginning to peak in Germany in the beginning of the 20th century, I'm just wondering how much Hitler was required to take those sentiments to the next level.
 
To the FBI employees suddenly following this discussion with a keen interest, no I do not support the assassination of any living heads of state. Thank you.
 
Looking at the popularity of it, I don't think these thoughts were Hitler's alone. Again, that's just my opinion.

Hitler has the charisma and the evil to make the worst of Germany bubble to the surfaces. IMO if he had been stopped in his rise to power we would have had a different and better world
 
I'm not opposed to assassination in some cases, but one of the problems with it is that when there is an established power structure, the next bozo just steps into the vacated place... and in many cases he may be as bad or worse.

saddam*cough*iraq*cough
 
Hitler has the charisma and the evil to make the worst of Germany bubble to the surfaces. IMO if he had been stopped in his rise to power we would have had a different and better world

I know what you're trying to do here - in your claim Obama is another Hitler it might justify taking him out now in his rise to power, that's it right?
 
From what I understand it might have made sense to eliminate him before he was able to instigate WWII, but once the war started it was probably best to let him stay in charge since strategically he was Germany's own worst enemy.

Something I'm not entirely clear on myself is, how responsible is Hitler personally for the events that led to WWII and the Holocaust? Did he simply ride a tidal wave of historical events? Or did he shape the thoughts of the time so specifically that those events never would have happened had he not lived?

This is a good question, and one that isn't 100% answered to this day.

But going by what I've read, I think the evil in his cabinet was at the very least equal, and quite likely much worse than Hitler himself. And they certainly had better ability to make it happen -- as you say, in many ways Hitler was his own worst enemy.

Hitler was rather crap at the business of running Germany, and not much a general either. He was disorganized and a bit mad and really, it seems as though his cabinet spent more time going around him than through him.

No doubt Hitler hated the Jews and various other types of people and was more than happy to see a plan to have them killed, but whether he even had a big hand in designing the Final Solution is still an open question. We do know with fair certainty that he didn't go into it with any kind of genocidal plan. And to all appearances, it wasn't initially put together as a plan at all -- it sort of slowly came together, piece by piece.

I think Hitler was probably too incompetent to be the main source of deed behind Nazi Germany. I think the likes of say, Goebbels or Himmler is a much more likely main force. It's a bit of a shame that the memorability of Hitler has overshadowed that, and that few people know their names and the kinds of things they did.
 
I know what you're trying to do here - in your claim Obama is another Hitler it might justify taking him out now in his rise to power, that's it right?

Free up some space in your mailbox, AW
 
I know what you're trying to do here - in your claim Obama is another Hitler it might justify taking him out now in his rise to power, that's it right?

So transparent. And a new thread comparing Obama to Chavez after the other one got sent downstairs....
 
saddam*cough*iraq*cough


Yeah. Saddam was bad, but his boys would likely have been worse.

And yeah, our regime change there isn't working out as well as hoped. There's just a whole lotta Stupid to go around in that region, and damn little Live and Let Live.
 
So transparent. And a new thread comparing Obama to Chavez after the other one got sent downstairs....

Oh, so this is a pattern then, is it? My tarot cards are telling me this thread is going to be closed for review before the day is done.
 
Absolutely. Before employing assassination as a tool, you've got to know what the result will be and whether it will help or harm overall. Only way to justify it.

I have literally nothing to add to this. You've said it all. :lol:
 
Yeah. Saddam was bad, but his boys would likely have been worse.

And yeah, our regime change there isn't working out as well as hoped. There's just a whole lotta Stupid to go around in that region, and
damn little Live and Let Live.



According to what I've read there's been a severe shortage of live and let live in the Middle East since long before Jesus Christ died on the cross.
 
According to what I've read there's been a severe shortage of live and let live in the Middle East since long before Jesus Christ died on the cross.



Yeah. Must be all that damn Sand.... makes people crazy. "Dammit, I've got sand in my arse again! That's it! I'm going to kill EVERYONE!"
 
This is a good question, and one that isn't 100% answered to this day.

But going by what I've read, I think the evil in his cabinet was at the very least equal, and quite likely much worse than Hitler himself. And they certainly had better ability to make it happen -- as you say, in many ways Hitler was his own worst enemy.

Hitler was rather crap at the business of running Germany, and not much a general either. He was disorganized and a bit mad and really, it seems as though his cabinet spent more time going around him than through him.

No doubt Hitler hated the Jews and various other types of people and was more than happy to see a plan to have them killed, but whether he even had a big hand in designing the Final Solution is still an open question. We do know with fair certainty that he didn't go into it with any kind of genocidal plan. And to all appearances, it wasn't initially put together as a plan at all -- it sort of slowly came together, piece by piece.

I think Hitler was probably too incompetent to be the main source of deed behind Nazi Germany. I think the likes of say, Goebbels or Himmler is a much more likely main force. It's a bit of a shame that the memorability of Hitler has overshadowed that, and that few people know their names and the kinds of things they did.

Assassination really isn't the best way to bring down a "regime," or a political movement, because both of these things tend to be larger than just one man.

In point of fact, the man up top is often little more than a charismatic figurehead for the bureaucratic and ideological machinery underneath. What's worse, killing that figurehead can have a tendency to turn them into a martyr, and lend further credence to the ideas they represented in life.

Just look at what happened after Julius Caesar's assassination, for instance, or Mahatma Ghandi's. Even without the man, their ideas were powerful and deeply rooted enough to reassert themselves. If anything, these assassinations backfired on the people who planned them, and they did so in rather spectacular fashion.

At the end of the day, assassination is best used as a means of eliminating people who are primarily dangerous on an individual basis, or as a means of denying the enemy access to certain individuals with skill sets and knowledge which could potentially be used against you. If you want to take down the enemy itself, you're going to have to resort to more forceful and all-encompassing measures.
 
Assassination really isn't the best way to bring down a "regime," or a political movement, because both of these things tend to be larger than just one man.

In point of fact, the man up top is often little more than a charismatic figurehead for the bureaucratic and ideological machinery underneath. What's worse, killing that figurehead can have a tendency to turn them into a martyr, and lend further credence to the ideas they represented in life.

Just look at what happened after Julius Caesar's assassination, for instance, or Mahatma Ghandi's. Even without the man, their ideas were powerful and deeply rooted enough to reassert themselves. If anything, these assassinations backfired on the people who planned them, and they did so in rather spectacular fashion.

At the end of the day, assassination is best reserved for people who are primarily dangerous on an individual basis, or as a means of denying the enemy access to certain individuals with skill sets or knowledge which could potentially be used against you. If want to take down the enemy itself, you're going to have to opt for a more forceful approach.



Exactly right, and why war is more "popular" than assassination.
 
Assassination really isn't the best way to bring down a "regime," or a political movement, because both of these things tend to be larger than just one man.

In point of fact, the man up top is often little more than a charismatic figurehead for the bureaucratic and ideological machinery underneath. What's worse, killing that figurehead can have a tendency to turn them into a martyr, and lend further credence to the ideas they represented in life.

Just look at what happened after Julius Caesar's assassination, for instance, or Mahatma Ghandi's. Even without the man, their ideas were powerful and deeply rooted enough to reassert themselves. If anything, these assassinations backfired on the people who planned them, and they did so in rather spectacular fashion.

At the end of the day, assassination is best reserved for people who are primarily dangerous on an individual basis, or as a means of denying the enemy access to certain individuals with skill sets or knowledge which could potentially be used against you. If want to take down the enemy itself, you're going to have to opt for a more forceful approach.

Yeah. I think what probably would have happened, had Hitler been assassinated, is simply that he'd become a martyr figure. The people who seem to have been the most instrumental in organizing the Holocaust would still be there, using his death to fan the fire of public support.
 
Back
Top Bottom