Did Hitler get away with it?

[Lost Magic]

I think you forgot to mention the people he killed.

Yeah, but we are talking about the long term here and if he paid any consequences for all the people he killed or not? Well of course he did. He lost the war and everything he built.

 

[9BBN]

Yeah, but we are talking about the long term here and if he paid any consequences for all the people he killed or not? Well of course he did. He lost the war and everything he built.

Would you say that Hitler paid for the Holocaust by losing the war and his empire?

 

[Snake of Eden]

Yeah, but we are talking about the long term here and if he paid any consequences for all the people he killed or not? Well of course he did. He lost the war and everything he built.

Is it even possible that he could pay for all the people that he have killed realistically speaking. Thats why absurdly long fictional sentencing is awarded for serial and mass murders. 1000 years life sentence? Thats symbolic but does not really do shit. Gimme a break

 

[Lost Magic]

Would you say that Hitler paid for the Holocaust by losing the war?

No, because he never stood trial like his foot soldiers did. But he ultimately died a broken man, hence the reason he killed himself. By the way I would like to point out that my grandfather fought on the British side in that war. I am so proud of him for helping to defeat the Nazis.

 

[GenesAndEnvironment]

Sry, I am drunk again.

 

[lonerclown666]

according to science there is not after life so he died like any other human

 

[Dr Iron Arc]

Can't decide. There's too many good points either way for me. Let's hope reincarnation isn't real and that he didn't end up being reborn somehow although then again by most interpretations of karma he may have actually been reborn as a persecuted member of society himself for all we know. Maybe his next life wound up imprisoned in China, Soviet Russia, or North Korea or something.

 

[Snake of Eden]

Can't decide. There's too many good points either way for me. Let's hope reincarnation isn't real and that he didn't end up being reborn somehow although then again by most interpretations of karma he may have actually been reborn as a persecuted member of society himself for all we know. Maybe his next life wound up imprisoned in China, Soviet Russia, or North Korea or something.

I really have huge problem with this doctrine about people being born to suffer because they were some assholes in past life. This is damaging as it enables continuation of suffering when something could be done to remove or decrease it. It is none sense. Reincarnation is a very faulty concept

 

[rationaldeath]

Anyone else a determinist and believe Hitler didn't deserve any punishment? It might sound crazy but I think the idea of blame is rooted in free will which I don't believe we have. Punishment purely as a deterrent might have some utility though.

 

[Lost Magic]

according to science there is not after life so he died like any other human

tbf though, Science, does not have a monopoly on the afterlife or even lack thereof. And there are plenty of Scientists out there who think that consciousness may survive death. By the way, I am agnostic but it does irk me a little when people claim to know all about what happens after death. You have to die, first, in order to find out haha.

 

[Dr Iron Arc]

I really have huge problem with this doctrine about people being born to suffer because they were some assholes in past life. This is damaging as it enables continuation of suffering when something could be done to remove or decrease it. It is none sense. Reincarnation is a very faulty concept

I agree. It also dooms other people like if someone were to reincarnate as an ant that gets stepped on because they liked to step on ants then wouldn't being born as an ant automatically solidify someone else's fate because they have to be the one to step on you? And so on and so forth. Reincarnation is really messy so I'm glad we can hopefully discount this as a possibility for Hitler's fate.

 

[Chinaski]

Not an individual basis. On the basis of criminals who threaten and stole the autonomy of others.

But it is on an individual basis unless you're excluding everyone with a criminal history from your pro-choice perspective. If it's on the basis of criminality alone then you're excluding a lot of people.

This discussion is moot anyway but any argument which states that suicide should only be tolerated when the person is of good character is an argument l can't go with. There are many unpleasant people who commit suicide and it's a slippery slope indeed to start picking and choosing who can and who can't do it based upon character.

 

[Snake of Eden]

Anyone else a determinist and believe Hitler didn't deserve any punishment? It might sound crazy but I think the idea of blame is rooted in free will which I don't believe we have. Punishment purely as a deterrent might have some utility though.

Human society and civilization wouldnt have been achieved if we operated from a place of pure determinism like what you are espousing. We wouldnt have had laws, justice system and force to enforce order so safety can be guaranteed and people have a medium in which they can prosper and function. It is funny how because we have reached such a level of comfort that we have the luxury to afford to think that people shouldnt be held accountable for their actions because they couldnt have chosen otherwise because things outside their control like genes and environment already has chosen for them. We have been removed from the reality of how things are in the world like never before because we can afford to.

 

[9BBN]

But it is on an individual basis unless you're excluding everyone with a criminal history from your pro-choice perspective. If it's on the basis of criminality alone then you're excluding a lot of people.

This discussion is moot anyway but any argument which states that suicide should only be tolerated when the person is of good character is an argument l can't go with. There are many unpleasant people who commit suicide and it's a slippery slope indeed to start picking and choosing who can and who can't do it based upon character.

OK, criminal history is irrelevant if the time is served. I don't think anyone who has a sentence to serve should have the right to die. This isn't an individual basis, it's categorical. Because there is no justice system if it can be escaped. That's not a slippery slope. You're arguing unless everyone has the right to die it's a slippery slope? It's not about character, it's about crime.

 

[rationaldeath]

Human society and civilization wouldnt have been achieved if we operated from a place of pure determinism like what you are espousing. We wouldnt have had laws, justice system and force to enforce order so safety can be guaranteed and people have a medium in which they can prosper and function. It is funny how because we have reached such a level of comfort that we have the luxury to afford to think that people shouldnt be held accountable for their actions because they couldnt have chosen otherwise because things outside their control like genes and environment already has chosen for them. We have been removed from the reality of how things are in the world like never before because we can afford to.

Why don't you think civilization could exist with determinism as the prevailing belief? We could still have laws and a justice system but the entire goal would be overall harm reduction instead of punishment for "bad" people. Might actually end up looking pretty similar to what we have now, just with a lot more empathy for criminals (I think some nordic countries are already closer to this reality).

 

[Snake of Eden]

Why don't you think civilization could exist with determinism as the prevailing belief? We could still have laws and a justice system but the entire goal would be overall harm reduction instead of punishment for "bad" people. Might actually end up looking pretty similar to what we have now, just with a lot more empathy for criminals.

The mere existence of laws and justice system is based on the idea of reinforcements positive and negative as tools to promote law abidance and avoid sentencing and other undesired consequences of law breaking actions. How can you possibly separate the two from each other when the main goal of such system existing is to deter people from committing acts that will be counterproductive for society overall wellbeing and prosperity? Unless it is a problem with semantics? There are tools to ensure Criminals receive enough compassion by protecting their right as they are presumed innocent until proven guilty and right to access to defense and parol, etc. How does a justice system work without punishment? How does empathy for criminals look like in punishment free determinist Society?

 

[OrcWitch]

This is a sensitive subject but I won't limit it to Hitler here. Life is short and everyone who does something evil ends up getting away with it by death and exiting the world.

I think the primary purpose of prison should be to separate those who can't behave fairly and safely from those who do. Retribution and rehabilitation also play a part don't get me wrong, but mainly criminal justice should be there as a way to protect the herd. So I am pro-choice for prisoners and criminals if they want, it doesn't change their separation from society. Whether Hitler went to prison or committed suicide, it doesn't bring back all the people who died in the process. It isn't so much about punishing criminal government members or getting revenge, it's about removing them and forming a new government where basic human rights are respected.

 

[rationaldeath]

The mere existence of laws and justice system is based on the idea of reinforcements positive and negative as tools to promote law abidance and avoid sentencing and other undesired consequences of law breaking actions. How can you possibly separate the two from each other when the main goal of such system existing is to deter people from committing acts that will be counterproductive for society overall wellbeing and prosperity? Unless it is a problem with semantics? There are tools to ensure Criminals receive enough compassion by protecting their right as they are presumed innocent until proven guilty and right to access to defense and parol, etc. How does a justice system work without punishment? How does empathy for criminals look like in punishment free determinist Society?

I'm not saying punishment would necessarily be removed entirely, but it would only be applied when the data showed it to be the most effective strategy for minimizing suffering (while taking the criminal themselves into account). I know this is already a consideration but I don't believe it is the only one. We seem to punish people because they "deserve it" in addition to as a deterrent, and I think we treat criminals worse because of it. Look at prisons in somewhere like finland vs here, they are much more focused on rehabilitation and their prisoners are treated a lot more humanely. It just seems to me that we can reduce the suffering of criminals pretty substantially without sacrificing the rest of society's wellbeing if we adopted the universal empathy that goes with determinism.

 

[Snake of Eden]

I'm not saying punishment would necessarily be removed entirely, but it would only be applied when the data showed it to be the most effective strategy for minimizing suffering (while taking the criminal themselves into account). I know this is already a consideration but I don't believe it is the only one. We seem to punish people because they "deserve it" in addition to as a deterrent, and I think we treat criminals worse because of it. Look at prisons in somewhere like finland vs here, they are much more focused on rehabilitation and their prisoners are treated a lot more humanely. It just seems to me that we can reduce the suffering of criminals pretty substantially without sacrificing the rest of society's wellbeing if we adopted the universal empathy that goes with determinism.

I hear what you are saying. Compassion is a good thing overall but the idea behind applying laws can not be implemented effectively if people who have intent on breaking the law , perceived the punishment to be an easy ride. I am sure good prison system that ensure some level of dignity and comfort is a better way of doing things and also like you said focusing on rehabilitation rather than vengeful aspect but thats a hard thing to untangle because you do want people to feel afraid from committing crimes enough to stop them and at the same time if they are caught you want to rehabilitate them. Balancing the two things is not easy. People still have to feel they will be punished to somewhat give them an incentive to not engage in criminal activity. Anyway i just wanted to make that clear

 

[odradek]

I don't think he "got away with it" so to speak. I feel that an egomaniacal, racist, mass murdering dictator who had designs on world domination did not want to go out with what he might view as a sad suicidal whimper huddled in a bunker like a coward. This is just speculation on my part but I don't think he envisioned dying like that when he invaded Poland in 1939.

Owning his defeat and forcing him to reckon with his heinous crimes through a trial would have brought some sense of justice for the world but I think hiding in a bunker choking on his own saliva as his empire and power collapsed around him was pretty fitting. But that's just my opinion.

 

[Fakereality]

Hitler was supposed to die anyway if allies had caught him they probably would have arranged for the execution at the quickest date possible they weren't about to give him a life sentence of sort, now soviets on the other hand weren't much discipline soldiers from what i heard they would have given him a painful slow death and made a show out of him though he had a frail body probably would have died midway through the torcher process.
If we are talking about crimes against humanity the us president at the time who authorized the nuking on Japan also got away with his crimes alive and well so did Japanese emperor akihito under whom Japan committed many massacres in asia so called leaders of country by design are always supposed to get away with their crimes one way or another.

 

[Snake of Eden]

If we are talking about crimes against humanity the us president at the time who authorized the nuking on Japan also got away with his crimes alive

I am not sure about that specific incident involved the nuclear bombing of japan. Of course civilians lives especially is sacred but on the other hand the japanese were relentless and it may have seemed like a good solution at the time. It is very morally convoluted situation to untangle though. It would be morally less ambigous if people still fought with primitive weapons. I wouldnt say he is absolved from the crimes but it could have been necessary. The japanese were brutal and ruthless. I dont know

 

[Fakereality]

I am not sure about that specific incident involved the nuclear bombing of japan. Of course civilians lives especially is sacred but on the other hand the japanese were relentless and it may have seemed like a good solution at the time. It is very morally convoluted situation to untangle though. It would be morally less ambigous if people still fought with primitive weapons. I wouldnt say he is absolved from the crimes but it could have been necessary. The japanese were brutal and ruthless. I dont know

What happened to Japan was by all definition a massacre you are free to justify it anyway you like but isn't it hypocritic to ignore one massacre for another? You cannot morally justified a massacre unless of course you are the Victor in the war which is what usa was my point is world isn't black and white morality is human made concept and it's always usually define,change enforce by the ruling players of the game.

 

[Snake of Eden]

What happened to Japan was by all definition a massacre you are free to justify it anyway you like but isn't it hypocritic to ignore one massacre for another? You cannot morally justified a massacre unless of course you are the Victor in the war which is what usa was my point is world isn't black and white morality is human made concept and it's always usually define,change enforce by the ruling players of the game.

No i dont think it is hypocritical. Like I said civilian lives are sacred and I am not condoning taking out civilian lives at all. But there is a big difference between Germans taking defenseless jewish populations and others and mass killing them, and a massacre committed in retailiation during an active war circumstance. Both things are reprehensible but while it is hard to see an excuse for the former, in the later it can be somewhat seen as necessary evil committed under stress of a real threat to end what could have been otherwise a much more lethal war. Like i said I dont know

 

[Chinaski]

I'm not inclined to go with the "lesser evil" argument with regard to the USA deciding to flex their military might by testing a weapon of mass destruction on the civilian population of a fishing village. More recently, a quarter of a million civilian lives were lost in the lraq War. Then there's that great American tragedy, Vietnam - a million Vietnamese civilians were killed, including 500 in the My Lai massacre where US soldiers gang-raped and slaughtered villagers. The individual held responsible for leading this massacre had his sentence commuted to three years "house arrest" by President Nixon

Hitler may have cheated justice but he did ultimately pay with his life, but it's not incorrect to state that that many other perpetrators of absolutely reprehensible acts of human slaughter do absolutely get away with it, often with people keen to defend this deed as "necessary" in some way, or some kind of "greater good".

 

[Snake of Eden]

I'm not inclined to go with the "lesser evil" argument with regard to the USA deciding to flex their military might by testing a weapon of mass destruction on the civilian population of a fishing village. More recently, a quarter of a million civilian lives were lost in the lraq War. Then there's that great American tragedy, Vietnam - a million Vietnamese civilians were killed, including 500 in the My Lai massacre where US soldiers gang-raped and slaughtered villagers. The individual held responsible for leading this massacre had his sentence commuted to three years "house arrest" by President Nixon

Hitler may have cheated justice but he did ultimately pay with his life, but it's not incorrect to state that that many other perpetrators of absolutely reprehensible acts of human slaughter do absolutely get away with it, often with people keen to defend this deed as "necessary" in some way, or some kind of "greater good".

Thank you for clearing that out in better light. I never side or justify aggression towards civilians. I think it always should be a red line