If you can travel through time, would you kill baby Hitler

Would you kill baby Hitler?

  • Total voters
    23
Blackshirts BLVD

Blackshirts BLVD

Joined
Aug 17, 2020
Posts
40,086
Reaction score
76,310
Bookie:
$ 891.00
I asked this on the other forum, figured we could revamp or at least bring it over here.

What say you?

And if so, what do you believe that says about you, nature, culture, etc... negative or positive?
 
No

Not because I just wouldn't kill an innocent (an infant), but Hitler was not some singular force, that with his demise, WWII would not exist. The pot was stirred and he just happened to lend his voice, albeit a tremendous orator. Sanctions against Germany following WWI were tremendous, and another would have took up the role of leader to the fascism ideal, should Hitler not have been alive. Arguably, he was actually a detriment due to many of his wartime decisions and another leader may have actually succeeded in the conquest.

Hitler was essentially a symptom, not the disease.

If provided the opportunity to time travel, you could always remove baby Hitler from his family, never allowed his parents to meet, or even just let him into art school to avoid the moral dilemma of killing an innocent to save millions. However, it wouldn't have mattered.


This same exercise could be applied to the American Revolution and the British soldier that had the opportunity to take out Washington early in the war, but didn't pull the trigger because Washington's back was turned. If he had, would that have prevented the American victory overall?
 
This has been proven over and over in every science fiction movie and tv show. Remember Captain Kirk trying to save Joan Collins?
Leave it alone.
 
leonardo dicaprio party GIF by Morphin
 
Cobrabit said:
No

Not because I just wouldn't kill an innocent (an infant), but Hitler was not some singular force, that with his demise, WWII would not exist. The pot was stirred and he just happened to lend his voice, albeit a tremendous orator. Sanctions against Germany following WWI were tremendous, and another would have took up the role of leader to the fascism ideal, should Hitler not have been alive. Arguably, he was actually a detriment due to many of his wartime decisions and another leader may have actually succeeded in the conquest.

Hitler was essentially a symptom, not the disease.

If provided the opportunity to time travel, you could always remove baby Hitler from his family, never allowed his parents to meet, or even just let him into art school to avoid the moral dilemma of killing an innocent to save millions. However, it wouldn't have mattered.


This same exercise could be applied to the American Revolution and the British soldier that had the opportunity to take out Washington early in the war, but didn't pull the trigger because Washington's back was turned. If he had, would that have prevented the American victory overall?
Click to expand...
John, read Adolf Hitler by John Toland. After you do, I'll let you buy me a beer. 🍻

The author despises Hitler and the Nazis but after reading the book, you fully understand where "Hitler" came from. He was a human, even if the most hated ever.

The whole thing of what critical mistakes Hitler made that cost them the war is fascinating, too. The most ironic of all is that if Hitler, et al had just used the Jews in the military, they'd have fought like wild animals like they did in WWI. Instead they squandered vast resources on containing and eliminating them.

The military blunders are a study in themselves. William Shirer, in The Rise and Fall... boiled it all down to this simple fact: the basic reason why the allies won and Germany lost is because Winston Churchill was constrained by the Generals and Hitler was not.
 
No.

Butterfly Effect and such.
 
TigerBait1971 said:
Naw fam. I'll be too busy making millions on sports bets.
Click to expand...
Good point.

Would I have finished law school or just ruined myself by using the time machine to win the lottery?

Would I have refused to meet my first bitch wife knowing that my 2 kids wouldn't have been born?

You've really ruined my evening here.
 
Fish said:
Good point.

Would I have finished law school or just ruined myself by using the time machine to win the lottery?

Would I have refused to meet my first bitch wife knowing that my 2 kids wouldn't have been born?

You've really ruined my evening here.
Click to expand...
no regrets GIF
 
HammerDown said:
John, read Adolf Hitler by John Toland. After you do, I'll let you buy me a beer. 🍻

The author despises Hitler and the Nazis but after reading the book, you fully understand where "Hitler" came from. He was a human, even if the most hated ever.

The whole thing of what critical mistakes Hitler made that cost them the war is fascinating, too. The most ironic of all is that if Hitler, et al had just used the Jews in the military, they'd have fought like wild animals like they did in WWI. Instead they squandered vast resources on containing and eliminating them.

The military blunders are a study in themselves. William Shirer, in The Rise and Fall... boiled it all down to this simple fact: the basic reason why the allies won and Germany lost is because Winston Churchill was constrained by the Generals and Hitler was not.
Click to expand...

I'll look into the book, thanks for the suggestion.


There are uncountable instances throughout combat, where one decision or pure luck of something seemingly irrelevant at the time changed the overall outcome. While many generals are held up as great commanders, their fate really was a coin flip at best.
 
The war was predestined by the Treaty of Versailles. It could be argues, as Hammer has done, that Hitler's flaws are the reason the Allies won the war.
 
Kburjr said:
The war was predestined by the Treaty of Versailles. It could be argues, as Hammer has done, that Hitler's flaws are the reason the Allies won the war.
Click to expand...
I'd argue that half a dozen bungles by the British completely nullified all the penalties of the Versailles Treaty. Neville Chamberlain in Munich was enough to do that. In fact, one author on my list has recently written a book laying much of the blame for WW2 at the hands of a no doubt well-intentioned but pacifist Neville Chamberlain.

What Hitler accomplished from 1933 - 1939 despite the Treaty of Versailles will go down as unprecedented in human history.
 
No tater salad......WTF?
 
Kburjr said:
It could be argues, as Hammer has done, that Hitler's flaws are the reason the Allies won the war.
Click to expand...
This is an entire book in itself, and a fascinating one.

Hitler blamed the Generals. The Generals blamed Hitler.

At the end of the day, Hitler was responsible and in the last few hours in the bunker he had at least the decency to go down with the ship.
 
HammerDown said:
This is an entire book in itself, and a fascinating one.

Hitler blamed the Generals. The Generals blamed Hitler.

At the end of the day, Hitler was responsible and in the last few hours in the bunker he had at least the decency to go down with the ship.
Click to expand...
Or did he?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top