[Tigerlily]

(Disclaimer: I went back two pages, which took me to 2009 and I didn't see anything similar to this. A few Hitler threads but nothing specific, unless, of course, someone mentioned it in a reply.)

The question is simple but the answer may not be.

Let us suppose that Hitler was found and captured by the Allies. Should he have been tried as a war criminal? Or would execution upon seeing him be acceptable?

This question is inspired by something I discussed with a classmate today about Osama bin Laden. I said Osama should have been given a trial but my classmate disagreed, saying he was a war criminal who took responsibility for everything he has done.

[Dr House]

War trials at The Hague are essentially kangaroo courts. The decision of whether Hitler is tried or not rests upon whether it would have been politically expedient to do so -- the outcome would have been the exact same.

[Lexington]

As Dr House points out, he would have been found guilty before the trial began in all but procedure.

Frankly, I think the fact that he killed himself instead might have been better for Germany and the world. No pictures of him hanging for neo-Nazis to cling on to...yes, there were the Nuremberg trials after the war but somehow I think putting Hitler on trial would have raised it to a different level, as putting all Germany on trial. That might have been more of an ordeal for the rehabilitation of Germany after the war than trying his underlings.

But I'm not sure.

[Fasces]

Not by the Allies.

[Tigerlily]

Lexington, I really agree with what you said. I never thought of it before but executing Hitler would be like making him a martyr. For whatever reason, mass society is sympathetic to those who are executed. Executing him would only further the mystique (for a lack of a better term) of Hitler and the Nazis.

[Decky]

Let us suppose that Hitler was found and captured by the Allies. Should he have been tried as a war criminal? Or would execution upon seeing him be acceptable?

Nope, if he was still alive when the red army had arrived he should have been hanged drawn and quartered. Each quarter would go to Moscow, London, Paris and Washington.

[Soixante-Retard]

I can't believe we're even debating this. What happened to giving everyone the due process of law? bin Laden ought to have been captured alive, if feasible, but if he posed a threat to the captors' lives, then by all means kill bin Laden in self-defence, but then the captor is going to have to explain and prove himself in a court of law that it was indeed in self defence.

[fuser]

Should Hitler have been tried?

Yes, and I don't remember any Nazi becoming a martyr because of Nuremberg. Even Mussolini didn't became a martyr and look what had happened to him.

[Soixante-Retard]

@fuser. You could say Rudolf Hess has become a martyr to neo-Nazis, precisely because he wasn't hanged.

[Tigerlily]

I can't believe we're even debating this. What happened to giving everyone the due process of law? bin Laden ought to have been captured alive, if feasible, but if he posed a threat to the captors' lives, then by all means kill bin Laden in self-defence, but then the captor is going to have to explain and prove himself in a court of law that it was indeed in self defence.

Some people seem to think that because Hitler did so many horrible things, he didn't deserve a trial. Same with Osama. But even the worst of serial killers who plead guilty still get a fair trial.

Yes, and I don't remember any Nazi becoming a martyr because of Nuremberg. Even Mussolini didn't became a martyr and look what had happened to him.

Maybe none became a martyr because they weren't the big honcho? Hitler was the leader, after all.

[fuser]

Maybe none became a martyr because they weren't the big honcho? Hitler was the leader, after all.

Mussolini was the leader too, and he was hanged in street like dogs and still didn't achieved the martyr status.

A trial (show) of Hitler would had been a very good thing instead, keep him on amphetamine, even forcefully (he was an addict) and let him rave like a lunatic in public, exposing his asinine and insane (also, his insanity) political goals.

But IMO if he hadn't committed suicide in bunker, some soviet soldier would had shot him or his prison guard or he would had committed (at least tried to commit) suicide in prison like Himmler.

[Arkady2009]

He should be tried by a jury of his peers. I don't care if everyone in the world knows you killed this person, or that person. Every human being has the right to a fair trial, and the right to speak against his accusers.

[Wolfman]

I think that there are certain differences between our attack on bin Laden compared to a possible similar attack against Hitler. In many ways, bin Laden is (or rather 'was') the face, brains, voice, and funding for al Qaeda, so removing him severely limits the functional abilities of al Qaeda. Compare this to Hitler, who was basically a functional retard who did nothing beneficial for Germany, and has been accused more then once of implementing military reforms that crippled the war fighting abilities of the Germans. So, taking out bin Laden hurts al Qaeda (thus helping us), while taking out Hitler would have probably had him replaced with a general who understood how to lead a military. There is also a difference in how easily we could have killed or captured them. Both were always heavily guarded, so the ability to capture them would have been very low. Though honestly, I don't see much need to use a trial. There is nothing against the Geneva Convention involving the targeted killing of enemy generals, which is essentially what bin Laden was.

Ideally, both should have been captured and charged for their crimes against humanity because fair and open trials are fundamental to free societies (though I do recognize that, regrettably, the Hague Trials for Nazis were basically Kangaroo Courts, and the same would have been true for bin Laden)

[Brio]

Compare this to Hitler, who was basically a functional retard

He was an amphetamine addict, but I don't think his IQ would put him into anywhere near "functional retard" territory.

the Hague Trials for Nazis

I think you mean the Nuremberg trials.

[Wolfman]

He was an amphetamine addict, but I don't think his IQ would put him into anywhere near "functional retard" territory.

There's a reason I don't like IQ. Ignoring the Holocaust (since the people who like Hitler will debate that), objectively everything Hitler did in Germany was completely against the interests of the German People, or one of two or three things that Hitler just allowed to continue from Pre-Nazi times. I cannot think of a better term for someone who manages to get in power in one of the most powerful countries on the planet, and then completely destroys it with policies that any idiot should be able to figure are stupid.

[fuser]

I cannot think of a better term for someone who manages to get in power in one of the most powerful countries on the planet

Germany was not one of the most powerful country on the planet by any measure when Hitler came into the power. Beside, a retard can't maneuver his way to the topmost position of a country.

[Wolfman]

Germany was not one of the most powerful country on the planet by any measure when Hitler came into the power

They were in a significant depression caused by the hilariously stupid things they did in WWI, the reparations afterwards, and the Great Depression, and some failed economic planning in the Inter-War Period. The abilities of Germany to hold out against superior numbers of troops for such a long period of time in WWI is incredibly impressive from a military and economic perspective and demonstrated significant economic and military power. They weren't at their best in the Inter-War Period, but Germany was still a major power in the world.

Beside, a retard can't maneuver his way to the topmost position of a country.

An existing party with broad support and some luck.

[fuser]

An existing party with broad support and some luck

When he joined the party, he was the 55th member.

They weren't at their best in the Inter-War Period, but Germany was still a major power in the world.

after every other first tier power, yes.

[Wolfman]

When he joined the party, he was the 55th member.

He didn't take control of Germany, the Nazi Party did, and Hitler just took control at a point where the Nazis were pretty powerful.

after every other first tier power, yes.

It's not a perfect example, but Germany in the Inter-War Period was a lot like modern Russia. Large population with the potential for a large industry and military that has somewhat recently demonstrated significant military and economic power and could again, but is in a bit of an economic clusterfuck at the moment.

[fuser]

Hitler just took control at a point where the Nazis were pretty powerful.

Hitler became leader of Nazi Party in 1921 when Nazi party membership was less than 4000.

It's not a perfect example, but Germany in the Inter-War Period was a lot like modern Russia. Large population with the potential for a large industry and military that has somewhat recently demonstrated significant military and economic power and could again, but is in a bit of an economic clusterfuck at the moment.

I know what Germany was like in inter war era and it surely wasn't a world power at that time in the sense that it couldn't affect any country's any policy, domestic or foreign.