Right or wrong?

[David Horn]

[refractor]

Basically it's about a soldier shooting another soldier and you can ignore the Hitler aspect. At that time there was no notion that that particular German would go on to be a genocidal fascist maniac...

From a military point of view, I guess that the British soldier should have shot him, but because of the war (i.e. the German was the enemy), not because of the whoever the German may or not be/become.

[James S]

I agree with refractor.

[Chad]

The soldier gave the German soldier his life back; the british soldier did the right thing. Not in any way is that soldier responsible for Hitler's doings.

[James S]

This is war, not the Pansy Theater.

[Nilles]

[Warren]

[Caesar]

I thought Hitler was a messenger boy? I remember he got hit by mustard gas or chlorine gas and was blind for weeks.


The British soldier militarily should have him, but did the correct moral thing in allowing a human life to live. However, it is a war as James said, so he should have fired. Also, if he did shoot and kill him, history would have been changed in a very serious way which is never good.

[Brig]

Never good?

How can you tell either way?

[Warren]

We can debate forever what may have happened if hitler was killed. But for one thing, without him, we wouldn't have Wolfenstein 3D, but then ~25 million civilians wouldn't have been killed (13 million in camps, ~10 million in Russia from scorch earth and starvation). But there would probably still be a WWII, because Japan was going to anyway, and Germany was pissed about WWI, so who knows.

[glenthemole]

Thats what i hate about these moral quandries... you need much more information to make any kind of decision.

Was the soldier firing back
Was he surrendering
Was he unarmed
etc
etc

[Nilles]

[Brig]

[sponge]

[Chad]