You are arguing against killing Hitler. You’re right that this sounds stupid, because it is.
But your whole post is really beside the point: there are absolutely, positively, beyond any doubt politicians who could justifiably be assassinated. Set aside guesswork about how such an act would have played out – the act itself would obviously be justified. It would in no way make you worse than Hitler, or even anywhere near as reprehensible.
At this point your faced with 2 options. Assassination or choosing the lesser evil.
The most absurd false dichotomy I’ve seen in a while, nice.
“Honestly the first choice just makes you the greater evil.”
“Killing Hitler just makes you worse than Hitler” – outstanding logic. Literally everyone outside of hardcore pacifists would agree there are certain politicians that it is OK to assassinate.
I think you have a little of that, and a little of this showing that the giga-rich didn’t get that way because they are these perfect human multi-specialty geniuses like they all claim.
Sure, maybe they’re pretty bright in one or two areas. Many successful people are. But they also do real stupid, shortsighted shit like this all the time. They got as rich as they did not on merit, but on family wealth, luck, and exploiting the labor of others.
Roosevelt, believing Stalin was not serious, quipped that “maybe 49,000 would be enough.”
Gets me every time
Also worth noting that 50k represented a tiny fraction of the Nazi military – there were well over a million people under arms right up until the end of the war. So Stalin and Roosevelt were already talking about officers and units that did the worst atrocities, not some mass retribution against the bulk of the military itself.
“Oh you think killing literally Hitler would be OK? Think again”