If you could go back in time and kill Hitler, would you?

Discussion in 'Community' started by Over Achiever, Oct 2, 2002.

  1. Over Achiever macrumors 68000

    Over Achiever

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2002
    Location:
    Toledo, OH, formerly Twin Cities, MN
    #1
    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?
     
  2. Sun Baked macrumors G5

    Sun Baked

    Joined:
    May 19, 2002
    #2
    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.
     
  3. job macrumors 68040

    job

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2002
    Location:
    in transit
    #3
    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...
     
  4. job macrumors 68040

    job

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2002
    Location:
    in transit
    #4
    Give me the gun.

    Tell me the place.

    Consider it done.
     
  5. Durandal7 macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2001
    #5
    Re: If you could go back in time and kill Hitler, would you?

    So true, so true :D
     
  6. Sun Baked macrumors G5

    Sun Baked

    Joined:
    May 19, 2002
    #6
    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)?
     
  7. job macrumors 68040

    job

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2002
    Location:
    in transit
    #7
    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.
     
  8. job macrumors 68040

    job

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2002
    Location:
    in transit
    #8
    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.
     
  9. Sun Baked macrumors G5

    Sun Baked

    Joined:
    May 19, 2002
    #9
    One monster or another, somebody would have ended up taking his place.
     
  10. scem0 macrumors 604

    scem0

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    back in NYC!
    #10
    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.
     

    Attached Files:

  11. job macrumors 68040

    job

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2002
    Location:
    in transit
    #11
    True.

    Stalin killed more Jews than Hitler ever hoped to..
     
  12. job macrumors 68040

    job

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2002
    Location:
    in transit
    #12
    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?
     
  13. Sun Baked macrumors G5

    Sun Baked

    Joined:
    May 19, 2002
    #13
    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. ;)
     
  14. job macrumors 68040

    job

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2002
    Location:
    in transit
    #14
    I could not agree more. They have indeed affected the world's view on genocide and helped to foster resistance against mass killings.

    The only "recent" example that I can think of is Pol Pot..

    However, your point is nevertheless a valid one. :)

    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.

    Yeah, no kidding.. :D
     

    Attached Files:

  15. Durandal7 macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2001
    #15
    I'm amazed. So far this thread hasn't turned into a fight. Keep it up guys :D
     

    Attached Files:

  16. job macrumors 68040

    job

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2002
    Location:
    in transit
    #16
    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..
     
  17. Smasher macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2002
    #17
    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.
     
  18. Lz0 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2002
    Location:
    Melbourne
    #18
    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.
     
  19. Taft macrumors 65816

    Taft

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2002
    Location:
    Chicago
    #19
    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
     
  20. job macrumors 68040

    job

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2002
    Location:
    in transit
    #20
    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.
     
  21. jefhatfield Retired

    jefhatfield

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2000
    #21
    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
     
  22. diorio macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2002
    #22
    I probably would, but there is no guarantee that someone else just as crazy wouldn't do the same thing.:(
     
  23. scem0 macrumors 604

    scem0

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    back in NYC!
    #23
    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.
     
  24. JupiterZen macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2002
    Location:
    Reality Maingrid 23 Subjunction 42A
    #24
    Re: If you could go back in time and kill Hitler, would you?

    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 ;)

    ;)
     
  25. job macrumors 68040

    job

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2002
    Location:
    in transit
    #25
    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.
     

Share This Page