View Full Version : If you could go back in time and kill Hitler, would you?
Over Achiever
Oct 2, 2002, 08:41 PM
Just saw this on the Twilight Zone (btw Ms. Heigl is hot!:D) in it got me wondering...
How many here, if given that chance, would go through with it and kill him?
Me...I know I'd save millions, but I hate killing with a vengence...I also hate guilt. How about you?
Sun Baked
Oct 2, 2002, 08:43 PM
Lessons to be learned from letting him continue in life, if he was taken down most likely a bunch of people would have followed in his place.
Just look at the number of recent mass graves in the past 20 years.
Originally posted by Sun Baked
Just look at the number of recent mass graves in the past 20 years.
There are plenty:
Pol Pot (Cambodia), Pinochet (Argentina), Bosnia, Kosovo, Northern Iraq, China (Mao)....
The list goes on and on. Just because it is not publicized as much as Hitler's evil does not make it any less diabolical.
I doubt the actions of one crazy will affect the decisions of another...
Give me the gun.
Tell me the place.
Consider it done.
Durandal7
Oct 2, 2002, 09:20 PM
Originally posted by Over Achiever
(btw Ms. Heigl is hot!:D)
So true, so true :D
Sun Baked
Oct 2, 2002, 09:24 PM
Would the United Nations be around in some form or another if WWII and the attrocities of Hitler didn't ever exist?
How 'bout the World Court (or whater the correct name is)?
Originally posted by Sun Baked
Would the United Nations be around in some form or another if WWII and the attrocities of Hitler didn't ever exist?
Probably. You had the League of Nations after the First World War which occured major genocide (i.e. death camps.)
It is logical to assume that some form of international governing body would exist in some monkier or another..especially after a global conflict.
Also, the UN was not made solely to stop future attrocities. It was formed to ensure a stable and peaceful international environment; stopping genocide was just one of it's goals.
Originally posted by Sun Baked
How 'bout the World Court (or whater the correct name is)?
The world court is unconstitutional...but that's another debate for another thread...
Do a search for it...I was involved in a heated debate with groovebuster ;) :p
It might have been the Pledge of Allegiance thread from a while back.
Back on topic:
If the world court was supposed to stop the crimes of the Third Reich and Hitler in particular, why was it founded recently?
Had they intended to prevent genocide throught the World Court, they would have founded it immediately after the Second World War.
Sun Baked
Oct 2, 2002, 09:39 PM
One monster or another, somebody would have ended up taking his place.
scem0
Oct 2, 2002, 09:39 PM
There are other things that kill a lot more people then Hitler did (car recks, guns, suicide, etc.) - so I would probably not kill hitler. I don't think the past should be mettled with. But I think that we should try to reduce killings by guns, and other things that we can improve, in these times.
Originally posted by Sun Baked
One monster or another, somebody would have ended up taking his place.
True.
Stalin killed more Jews than Hitler ever hoped to..
Originally posted by scem0
There are other things that kill a lot more people then Hitler did (car recks, guns, suicide, etc.) - so I would probably not kill hitler.
But are those "things" the planned and complete elimination of a group of people?
Car wrecks are far different than genocide. Are you trying to say that death camps and gas showers are a lesser crime than "guns?" :rolleyes:
Would you go back in time and prevent the invention of the internal combustion engine, just to prevent car wrecks?
Sun Baked
Oct 2, 2002, 09:56 PM
Were Hitler's actions a pivotal point in history, or not?
At what point in history would the world governments have made the attempt to prevent genocide?
Moving pivotal points around just moves the points around where key institutions needed for world management get formed. I only threw in the World Court as a thought, would it be coming together now or still something decades in the future.
Star Trek gives you the reasons not to play with the timeline. ;)
Originally posted by Sun Baked
Were Hitler's actions a pivotal point in history, or not?
I could not agree more. They have indeed affected the world's view on genocide and helped to foster resistance against mass killings.
At what point in history would the world governments have made the attempt to prevent genocide?
The only "recent" example that I can think of is Pol Pot..
However, your point is nevertheless a valid one. :)
Moving pivotal points around just moves the points around where key institutions needed for world management get formed.
I can see where you are coming from. Had Hitler been killed, perhaps the events after the Second World War (if there hypothetically was one, seeing as Hitler is dead.. ;) ) might have taken place later, or even not at all.
Star Trek gives you the reasons not to play with the timeline. ;)
Yeah, no kidding.. :D
Durandal7
Oct 2, 2002, 10:06 PM
I'm amazed. So far this thread hasn't turned into a fight. Keep it up guys :D
Originally posted by Durandal7
I'm amazed. So far this thread hasn't turned into a fight. Keep it up guys :D
Heh. Thats a great attachment.. :D
This might be the first quasi-political thread that has not turned into a flamewar..
Debate with Sun Baked is logical, consistant, and enjoyable... :D
The way political debates should be held..
Smasher
Oct 2, 2002, 11:03 PM
Although he clearly deserved to die, I wouldn't for a variety of reasons. First, doing so would guarantee that anyone conceived after you killed him (say, 1930, for no particular reason) wouldn't exist today (including virtually everyone on this board, and almost all of our relatives and friends). Second, as WW2 was obviously such a key part of history throughout the world, there's really no way to predict, with anything resembling accuracy, what would happen more than a few years after 1945. Therefore, it's quite possible our time would be much worse than it actually is.
For example: although research was considerably quickened by the prospect of war, at least some (and perhaps much) of the theory behind the atomic bomb was already created by the time the Manhatten Project got underway. Sooner or later, someone would have developed the bomb anyway, and it's quite likely other nations would soon have followed suit (as they did in our timeline). I believe, although it is somewhat counter-intuitive, that the development of the atomic bomb during peacetime would have led to a nuclear catastrophe. A cold war like the one we really went through would probably have developed, resulting in a Mutually Assured Destruction situation, and sooner or later someone would get an itchy trigger finger.
The crucial distinction between our timeline and this theoretical timeline is that we have examples of the horrible killing and destruction capability of an atomic bomb (Hiroshima and Nagasaki), while they would not. Yes, they would know how powerful the bomb is, but a real-life reminder to put the destruction in perspective is a powerful reason not to fire. Without this reason, someone would fire, and then MAD would actually happen, obliterating most human life on Earth.
In ten years time if you could go back in time would you kill George W???
Those of us who emerge from caves into a radioactive dark cold planet might just ask that question.
Taft
Oct 3, 2002, 07:34 AM
Originally posted by hitman
The world court is unconstitutional...but that's another debate for another thread...
Do a search for it...I was involved in a heated debate with groovebuster ;) :p
It might have been the Pledge of Allegiance thread from a while back.
Well, maybe the constitution should be changed. It has been done before you know.
As a side note, I love how some people like to bring up the founding father's "intentions" when talking about subjects like this. It is nearly impossible to say exactly what tthe founding fathers intended while writing the constitution. And it was well known that they were not all in agreement on every issue.
What is clear is that they set up a system of government where the laws, rights, and the system itself could change with due process. They "intended" for the constitution to change.
My point is that just because something is prohibited (allowed) in the constitution, doesn't make it wrong (right).
Who says that we need to remain an isolated country for the rest of time. Why not a world comunity? A world government?? If all countries could get together on issues like human rights, basic rights and freedoms, I would have no problem submitting myself to a world government. But now, with the likes of China, North Korea and some Mid Eastern countries out there, it would be a very bad idea. But why can't we work towards that? If done correctly it could mean a huge benefit to society.
Taft
Originally posted by Taft
A world government?? If done correctly it could mean a huge benefit to society.
True, perhaps the immediate benefits might be appealing, however, I don't see a world government as a viable solution to the issues that exist in our world. How can a government, far removed from the people it governs, adequetly and fairly rule everyone with such a vast amount of power?
Sadly, the undeniable flaws in human nature will corrupt any world government, even if it is created with good intent.
jefhatfield
Oct 3, 2002, 11:32 AM
Originally posted by Lz0
In ten years time if you could go back in time would you kill George W???
Those of us who emerge from caves into a radioactive dark cold planet might just ask that question.
i would have let him have the baseball commissioner's job he wanted a few years back:D
most likely, then, my dems would still be in the white house
diorio
Oct 3, 2002, 03:58 PM
I probably would, but there is no guarantee that someone else just as crazy wouldn't do the same thing.:(
scem0
Oct 3, 2002, 05:07 PM
Originally posted by hitman
But are those "things" the planned and complete elimination of a group of people?
Car wrecks are far different than genocide. Are you trying to say that death camps and gas showers are a lesser crime than "guns?" :rolleyes:
Would you go back in time and prevent the invention of the internal combustion engine, just to prevent car wrecks?
Yes I think millions of people dying each year from guns is a worse crime then the death camps, and the gas showers. I am just saying, mabe we could make stricter laws on the safety of cars, or make it harder for a murderer to get his gun, or his means of killing the person he is killing. These problems are not easily solved, and pretty much impossible at that, but they can be worked on. Millions of people would still be alive if it weren't for guns (not to mention a whole lot of deer, doves, and other hunted-by-humans animals.
JupiterZen
Oct 3, 2002, 05:45 PM
If the timetravel thing is an option, I would go back further in time and prevent Adolf Hitler coming in contact with all the occult and anti-semitic influences that shaped his life.
I would have saved an extra soul then ;)
;)
I'm sorry, but I'd rather be able to defend myself rather than getting blown away by a criminal that does have a gun.. :rolleyes:
Gun control laws will not stop a criminal from optaining a weapon. Already involved in illegal actions, a criminal will have no qualms buying weapons on the black market.
Case in point: Guns and other arms are illegal in the British Isles, yet the IRA was still able to procure weapons during the 70s. The common gentry was unable to defend themselves against terror.
Originally posted by JupiterZen
If the timetravel thing is an option, I would go back further in time and prevent Adolf Hitler coming in contact with all the occult and anti-semitic influences that shaped his life.
I would have saved an extra soul then ;)
;)
Ah, good point. :)
I'm surprised no one thought of that sooner...
Sun Baked
Oct 3, 2002, 05:52 PM
Get rid on Hitler, and you castrate the moon shot and virtually eliminate the Volkswagen and all people conceived in the back seats of a Beetle.
vniow
Oct 3, 2002, 05:56 PM
Ah, good point.
I'm surprised no one thought of that sooner...
I don't know about that.
If you look at Hitler's childhood and young adulthood, yeah, he had some problems, but none were severe enough to warrant him to go out and command armies to kill millions of Jews.
There were plenty of people that suffered through similar abuses as Hitler, but only one actually became Hitler.
It's that whole nature vs nurture argument and in this case, nature won.
Originally posted by edvniow
It's that whole nature vs nurture argument and in this case, nature won.
In other words, he would have become what he eventually turned out to be, no matter how his childhood turned out..
Sun Baked
Oct 3, 2002, 06:06 PM
Did you ever watch some of the History Channel stuff on WWII (especially the Hitler Mistakes edition)?
He made enough mistakes at key points, it's almost like somebody went back in time and mislead him.
vniow
Oct 3, 2002, 06:06 PM
Originally posted by hitman
In other words, he would have become what he eventually turned out to be, no matter how his childhood turned out..
That's exactly what I think.
A good experiment would be to take his DNA and clone it about 8 times.
Take one baby and raise it exactly like Hitler was raised, same food, same friends, same everything.
Take the rest of the babies and place them in random households.
I'm not saying that none of his childhood abuses helped to shape him into what he became, I think they just added to what was already there and may have been the trigger for the Hitler that we know now.
Originally posted by edvniow
That's exactly what I think.
A good experiment would be to take his DNA and clone it about 8 times.
Take one baby and raise it exactly like Hitler was raised, same food, same friends, same everything.
Take the rest of the babies and place them in random households.
Ever read The Boys From Brazil?
It's about the same theory...
alex_ant
Oct 3, 2002, 07:21 PM
Hitler was a product of his environment. Anti-semitism was common in post-WWI Germany. When an extremely nationalistic country loses a war, it gets humiliated and angry. It looks for a scapegoat. "It's the Jews - the Jews are keeping us down."
Hitler wasn't always the bad guy he became known as. He was once a calm, collected aspiring artist. Unfortunately, he wasn't accepted into the Austrian art school he applied to - this rejection is said to have lead to the first burning embers of his racism. If he had been accepted into this art school, he likely never would have became a tyrannical dictator. However, the mood in Germany at the time was such that if Hitler had never became a politician, it's not all that unlikely that someone even worse would have ascended to power.
Hitler became chancellor legally. He was a popular figure in Germany because he spoke with passion and was able to convince the Germans that he was "on their side" and could help dig Germany out of the economic ****hole it was in. It wasn't until after he had gained power that he solidified his position and imposed totalitarianism. Even then, he was popular.
So if I were taken back in time to around 1942, then yes, I'd kill Hitler. But if I were taken back to the 1920s, killing him would have been totally unnecessary.
Alex
madamimadam
Oct 3, 2002, 07:46 PM
Originally posted by Durandal7
I'm amazed. So far this thread hasn't turned into a fight. Keep it up guys :D
Did you ever go through the phase of designing your own characters and maps for Marathon???
I still say, 2 was DEFINATELY the best in the trillogy.
As for the topic... It is a hard decision... along with what people have already said (that I have read) the war pulled the world out of depression.
jefhatfield
Oct 4, 2002, 10:27 AM
Originally posted by Sun Baked
Get rid on Hitler, and you castrate the moon shot and virtually eliminate the Volkswagen and all people conceived in the back seats of a Beetle.
we would have gone to the moon a few years later and the kids would have been conceived in a ford ;)
hey, that could be a commercial :eek:
scem0
Oct 4, 2002, 05:12 PM
Originally posted by edvniow
That's exactly what I think.
A good experiment would be to take his DNA and clone it about 8 times.
Take one baby and raise it exactly like Hitler was raised, same food, same friends, same everything.
Take the rest of the babies and place them in random households.
They would end up killing each other :D
vBulletin® v3.8.6, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
