NationStates Jolt Archive

Imagine that somehow we could travel back in time and had the opportunity to kill Hitler when he was a baby, thus preventing the entire holocaust. Would this be a justified course of action? Would we be justified in killing his parents, or his grandparents, in order that he might not be born? Remember that baby Hitler has never done anything wrong, so we would be killing an innocent. And if we are justified in killing him for the greater good, does this not lead us into being justified for actions such as abusing minorities for the sake of majorities??

Any thoughts?

Imagine that somehow we could travel back in time and had the opportunity to kill Hitler when he was a baby, thus preventing the entire holocaust. Would this be a justified course of action? Would we be justified in killing his parents, or his grandparents, in order that he might not be born? Remember that baby Hitler has never done anything wrong, so we would be killing an innocent. And if we are justified in killing him for the greater good, does this not lead us into being justified for actions such as abusing minorities for the sake of majorities??

Any thoughts?

Not good. We can't hold somebody resposible for something before they do it. Too much in life is not determined. Perhaps I might try to influence him to not be so evil, but not kill him.

There's an old saying.....

"Better the Devil you know"

You've just watched that Russian movie, "Come and See", haven't you? :D

I don't believe in crossing the moral ground to kill innocent people. However, If Hitler happened to catch a stray bullet in the Trenches during WW1, I don't think it would have been that great a loss.

I'd approve of him being assassinated whilst a rising star in the nazi party. By then he'd be spouting hateful rhetoric and freely engaging in murderous tactics but would not be a threat to world stability.

Actually, the treaty of Versailles was the guarantee for WW2. WW1 never really ended and with the rather harsh treatment of Germany after WW1, the course was set for the next conflict - WW2. Hitler was merely the one who had the courage to do it. If not for him, I am sure, someone else would have done something similar.

Ein Deutscher']Actually, the treaty of Versailles was the guarantee for WW2. WW1 never really ended and with the rather harsh treatment of Germany after WW1, the course was set for the next conflict - WW2. Hitler was merely the one who had the courage to do it. If not for him, I am sure, someone else would have done something similar.

Yeah, more or less. Versailles gave the motive, and the Depression gave the opportunity. Just goes to show what happens when you try to rub the loser's nose in it.

Imagine that somehow we could travel back in time and had the opportunity to kill Hitler when he was a baby, thus preventing the entire holocaust. Would this be a justified course of action? Would we be justified in killing his parents, or his grandparents, in order that he might not be born? Remember that baby Hitler has never done anything wrong, so we would be killing an innocent. And if we are justified in killing him for the greater good, does this not lead us into being justified for actions such as abusing minorities for the sake of majorities??

Any thoughts?
You imply that:

"If Hitler wasn't born, then the holocaust would have never happened."

Not only is that killing an innocent baby, but you never know what could have happened. Europe was full of nationalism and anti-semitism. Hitler didn't invent any of those. Perhaps someone else would have done it. Or it could have been worse even.

But it was Hitler who had the charisma to convince the German people that Nazism was the correct course of action. Remember that there were so many political parties, each more vague and ill-defined than the last, and governments tended to last only a few months. Hitler was a public figure, with great presence, hence the Germans latched on to him in a time of political apathy. Removing Hitler, either by changing his course in life or taking him out, would probably have stopped Nazism from being so destructive. The Nazis only became truly popular when germany hit crisis point, despite Hitler's input, but it was his input that made the public so aware of the Nazi party and convonced them to vote Nazi (debatable point). Perhaps the Nazis would have risen to power, but it was Hitler and his personal goals that the Nazis worked towards. WW2 came about because of Hitler's unquenchable thirst for conquest and territory, not just because (or even in spite of the fact) he broke the terms of the Treaty. Would the Nazis have done the same?

Feel free to disagree. You would have to eliminate Hitler before WW2 though, because he would have been replaced by a competent general, and then we would have been stuffed!

"Europe was full of nationalism and anti-semitism."

Yeah. Good job we stamped out that whole "nationalism" thing, or else we'd still be killing people by the millions.

I say kill the baby. None of this moral dancing around the point.

Slaughter of millions of innocents in death camps doesn't just happen as a part of war. That was Hitler's personal vendetta. You think if he wasn't there, it would just be inevitable that someone else would get it into his head to start a master race and wipe out all jews, gypsies and invalids?

Even if WWII still went ahead, without Hitler, it would have been far less cruel.

But the question I would raise is whether or not Germany still would have lost if they had someone else leading them other than Hitler.

Watch Minority Report...

There's an old saying.....

"Better the Devil you know"


In this case, I'm inclined to agree. It's not the first time this question of 'what if' has been put forward.

I generally believe killing Hitler as a baby would not have changed the ant-semitic, dissaffected bad feeling in Germany after WW1, there was other people, who gave speeches also, but then again, none were so good at drawing in a listening crowd like Hitler.

If he had been killed, in the 30's, it would have paved the way for his rival, the leader of the SA, and he may have been worse. If Hitler had been killed in '41, '42, it's a safe bet that Heinrich, the Reichsprotoktor of Czechoslovakia would have taken over. He was a devout Nazi, a real nasty piece of work.

The danger with messing with history is that Hitler was crap at military strategising and irrational in his thinking.

Someone who took over and who was in the midst of WW2 may have been more calculated, highly intelligent, and a genius at military, as well as being more nasty.

Or that may not have been, they may have been a moderate replacement.

The thing is, it's a gamble. Do you stick with the devil you have, or make a leap in the dark only to find a greater devil?

Had someone else than Hitler been the "Führer", I guess the war would have gone differently. Towards the end, Hitler suffered mental illnesses and lost perspective totally. He was delusional with visions of grandeur beyond reality and literally threw the German soldiers against odds that were impossible to win against.

Had someone else with more military knowledge and less egotism been at the helm at the time, I think Germany would be a superpower today, next to the US.

i cannot condone killing hitler for something he is yet to commit.and by my being there can be stopped.i say,get him into that damn art school!

I don't see what is wrong with punishing someone for a crime thay have yet to, but are certainly deemed to, commit. Given the time travel part, we know that he won't change his mind. We live in a world where he has commited these crimes already. Therefore is universaly guilty.

It sounds cruel, but allow me to explain what I mean.

The hollocaust was most likely the single biggest act of evil this world has ever seen - the murdering of countless people for the sole reason that they were Jews. And it was all carried out on the orders of The German Leader, Adolf Hitler, a man who believed that the perfect race were Pure German-blooded Males with blonde hair and blues eyes, even though Hitler himself was dark-haired, had dark eyes, was from Austria and, according to Russian Medical Documents, had only one ball.

However, as dispicable an action it was, even if we could, we must never change what happened - the consequences could be cataclysmic! Who knows what would happen as a result.

You are all probably thinking "This guy is an idiot - what could go wrong by stopping something so evil?"

Well there are two answers for that.

First of all, the hollocaust made the Allies more determined to win the war and end Hitler's reign of terror - it lit a fire under them which would have aided them winning the war. Also, the hollocaust made some people think - were THEY treating Jews badly? Maybe it's time to give 'em a break? It created progress in the bid the end discrimination against Jewish people (this one sounds like a weak idea, but it is still somewhat of a valid point).

And of course there is a final reason which is bot simple yet complex at the same time (talk about paradox).

In order for great good to exist - great evil must exist. It's called Moral Evil.

You see, if we had no evil, we would always be good, right? Well, no - you see, without evil, you cannot compare good to anything, so you are not being good because you CHOOSE to, you are being good because it is all you CAN do. The removal of evil is the removal of freewill.

Sounds weird, but it is true. Which society is worse -

(A) A world where people always do nice things but have no choice in the matter; they are slaves to morality. The only reason they do nice things is because they don't know what evil is - but because of this there is no freewill. You cannot choose for yourself - you HAVE to be good...therefore you are not truely good...only those who choose the path of morality are noestly moral.

(B) Our world where people have freewill and can choose whether they wish to be good or not. Because evil exists, there is choice, and when people choose good over evil, you know they are doing it NOT because they don't have a choice and are drones to morality - but because they WANT to be good - and that my friends is true goodness.

Don't get me wrong - I am not pro-evil. I do not choose evil, I do not wish to be evil, and I am in no way supporting those who are evil...however, I accept that it exists and there is nothing we can do about it.

The sad fact is, if want to live in a world of free will - we have to accept that evil exists, because if we don't have evil...we do not have true good.

So...I ask this question:

Which scenario is better - a world where people can only do good things, but then can never be truely good...or a world where people can CHOOSE to be good, because they wish to be?

Until next time...

Steven

For once if Hitler wasn't born then the Holocaust wouldn't have happened is... well, forget it, nobody would know that for sure. Who knows, it could have been worse without him (like WW2, luckily Hitler every now and then interfered with the way the war was going and thus messed up a few things, take the Normandy landing and the German tank divisions that weren't allowed to move since Hitler believed Normandy was just a diversion and the real landing was at Callais). Sure, you could say that without Hitler there wouldn't have been a WW2, though I disagree with that. For the homecountry of my parents WW2 started with the Marco Polo bridge incident between China and Japan.

Secondly, if you travel back in time and kill Hitler, you'll mess up the timeline completely. Who knows, you may not even be born. But if you're not born, how can you travel back in time and kill Hitler?

I know a few people who wouldn't exist if their grandparents wouldn't have met during the war. *thinks of her grandmother from her mother's side* Same goes for me I'd say.

Also, if you go back to kill him, who says that somebody else wouldn't go back to protect him?

As for Hitler's ideas, well those have been around for some time. He picked up most of it while he was in Vienna prior to WW1 (where he tried to get on the university, but they didn't accept him, cause his drawings -yet pretty good from a technical point of view- just lacked soul and emotion).

Heck, you could mess up the world by not only going after Hitler, there are many other possibilities. You could kill Napoleon, or Lincoln, maybe Washington as baby, or even Jesus or anyone else.

Btw, concerning Versailles... I think it was marshall Foche from the French who said "this treaty is only a truce for 20 years".

Honestly, I think the results of such a time travel would be worse than actual history.

I mean, it could end like in C&C Red Alert... Who knows...

I know a few people who wouldn't exist if their grandparents wouldn't have met during the war.

So, why kill Hitler? Just make sure his parents never meet and he won't even be born. No killing required, just messing a little with two people's private lives.

"Europe was full of nationalism and anti-semitism."

Yeah. Good job we stamped out that whole "nationalism" thing, or else we'd still be killing people by the millions.

I say kill the baby. None of this moral dancing around the point.

Slaughter of millions of innocents in death camps doesn't just happen as a part of war. That was Hitler's personal vendetta. You think if he wasn't there, it would just be inevitable that someone else would get it into his head to start a master race and wipe out all jews, gypsies and invalids?

Even if WWII still went ahead, without Hitler, it would have been far less cruel.

But the question I would raise is whether or not Germany still would have lost if they had someone else leading them other than Hitler.


The same arguement is being made now. Should we kill George W Bush before he leads us down the path to total global war, or just put him on trial for the warcrimes and crimes against humanity he has already committed? I'm sure there will be scholarship works on this administration years from now when we finally rebuild from the ruins, making arguements much like your own.

Personally, I would look deeper than this thread suggests. In the Documentary "The Corporation" it describes the roll of Corporations such as Coke, IBM and others who playe a significant role in bringing the war about and sustaining it for as long as they did. The Support Germany was getting from American Corporations helped to finance almost the entire thing. Cocacola Bottling Corp changed its name in Germany to "Fanta", which allowed them to make money off of the holocaust. IBM's primary NY branch in New York leased the actual machines to funnel people to the right Death Camp for forced labor and murder. They actually helped design the system with punch cards and everything to provide the most efficent death machine ever constructed. More than the Atomic Bomb has ever killed.

One particularly good instance was the corporation which Prescott Bush worked with an hired all his "Skull and Bones" society friends to work with. It pretty much a given that he (Grandfather to the current defacto Emperor George W Bush) funnelled millions of dollars personally from Germany after the way, through his Dutch Bank connections, and that financed his first Arms business, which of course was passed to his son former President George HW Bush.

With that the Corporations in question prevented Roosevelt from going into WWII, evectively symied the president even though the population loved him. Such it is with democratic presidents, they are constantly bombarded by legal battles duing their tenure by corporate influences. To give more power to the people took it away from private power. In once instance 4 corporation hired a General to raise a 500,000 man army to rise up and overthrow Washington in 1937. Fortunately, this man, who admits with no remorse on national broadcast at the time that he was a mercenary who worked for corporations to supress 6 countries, he was not a traitor to his country and went directly to the President with the news.

In the end I don't think Hitler dead or alive would have made any difference, the corporations would fund anyone who could bring about a fascist state. They funded Italy and Japan, and have continued to do so since. American corporations actually avoided selling aluminum during the war to the American Military and instead provided it the German Military. Leaving the US without a strong or constant supply.

I do admit that the holocaust itself may not have come about the same, or even remotely the same, but the war was pretty much a given.

Today the same words are being spread, both leaders, The German Chancellor Hilter or Emperor Bush and their compatriots both stated strongly that God is with them an that they are acting as agents of God. But thats simply poltics, the money to be made an taken is all that matters.

Unfortunately, wars are not cheap, and with a rising debt looking ready to pass 1 trillion, and running another deficit, the only people getting rich are the people who are finacing the war, also they are the people directly in control of it.

I'm sure you will not be shocked to know that Halliburton has a projected gross take from the US governments 85 Billion, and plus the new umteen billion Emperor Bush just asked for recently, to be in excess of 15 billion. Yep, Dicks Cheneys precentage ownership an stock options from Halliburton (as he does not run it anymore) may be in excess of a billion dollars. Your money went into his pocket.

It's been this way for time immemorial, I don't see it changing soon.

U cannot change the past! :sniper:

It sounds cruel, but allow me to explain what I mean.

The hollocaust was most likely the single biggest act of evil <SNIP>...we do not have true good.

So...I ask this question:

Which scenario is better - a world where people can only do good things, but then can never be truely good...or a world where people can CHOOSE to be good, because they wish to be?

Until next time...

Steven

Steven,

The duality that your proposing does not exist. Evil and good are just concepts. No one can be truly evil or truly good. A perfect example is a compartive between Combodia and East Timor, 1973-1976. Cambodia was evil and killed millions... Right? We read all about "The Killing Fields"...

But East Timor was the largest single most genocidal act sine the Holocaust. possible 2-3 million people were mascacred and their whole country was turned from tropical backwater land to cash crop. The presecution exist until this day? Is that evil? Well, we don't read about it or hear about it? Why not? Well, its because we financed it. We killed those people through Indonesia. Our fault. Opps Millions dead, no one hears a thing...

The same is happening today, No one who wanted to keep their skin or be taken seriously would call Emperor Bush evil, right? He's doing the world a good thing right? He's giving a "final solution" to the arab problem. Finally these Arab's will be put in their place and they can have democracy as long as we own the oil... The piles of dead bodies and all the warcrimes of this illegal war are just "accidents" even though nothing is ever done to help the up to 100,000 Iraqis who have been killed. 800 tons of Depleated Uranium ammo (Spent Nuclear Fuel rods) have been dumpe onto Iraq causing nuclear pollution for likely one of the first times in recorded history (except for some small lake in Russia when they dump their nuclear waste)

Hitler started with Yugoslavia, and then in 1939 went after Poland. I expect the same will happen hear. The frist act of defiance already came when Canada's Paul Martin said "We will protect our Sovriegnty and not participate in an the Ballastic Missile shield." Effectively snubbing his nose at Emperor Bush. Japan, China an South Korea are all trying to work with Polyang and its possible they will work out a comfortable arraignment without the United States involved. Japan's Koziumi apparently is very fond of Kim Jong II. This will lead to a new "Asian Bloc" of Nations who dod not need the United States nearly as much.

Europe is likely going to turn down the proposed changes to the European Patents office and declare that Living things cannot be patented, which fortunately only occurs in the US (and because of Free Trade, Canada and Mexico.) This is likely on account of the fact that the United States has refused to ratify the ICC (International Criminal court) for it fears that their leaders an Soldiers may be tried there, and will not budge until they have an exemption. Luckily, they could not buy enough countries to aggree with them and the ICC, though never sanctioned by the UN security council 9Vetod by the US) will likely be working on the new Darfur warcrimes.

When Emperor Bush invades Iran it will be the "Poland" of the Nazi's and given that Syria will likely be attacked by Isreal first, their new alliance will likely spread to other Islamic Nations. The United States can maybe convince the world they are still the good guys, but by that time, I don't think the liberal europeans will just sit idly by while the US invaded another country. It would be morally reprehensible to them, and to most humans.

Basically. the concept of evil or good acts or intentions are left to the purview of the viewer. Its obvious that if you are powerful you can get away with things other leaders cannot. Right now, the other countries are placating the new "Rome", but that won't last forever, and then this 50/50 split on whether George is "Evil" or "Good" will tilt in favor of the victors of the next World War.

Then they will write books about it so we will never forget the atrocities and so on, so on.

Ein Deutscher']Had someone else than Hitler been the "Führer", I guess the war would have gone differently. Towards the end, Hitler suffered mental illnesses and lost perspective totally. He was delusional with visions of grandeur beyond reality and literally threw the German soldiers against odds that were impossible to win against.

Had someone else with more military knowledge and less egotism been at the helm at the time, I think Germany would be a superpower today, next to the US.

You must remember, at the time, Germany was the "pinnical of technological civilization" which all strived to be... Hitler was a very intelligent and shrewd man. He understood that you could rescue a flagging economy with huge investments of state capital. America was still very naive back then, until, of course, they learned the German techniques after the war. Heck, its debatable that without German techniques an individuals that America would get into space until the late 60s.

If Hitler was killed as a baby then the Nazi Party wouldnt have reached the level of popularity that it did. So we have a gap. Who would have filled Hitler shoes and since no-one was able to advance the Nazi Party then they wouldnt ever have got into power.
I believe that the Communist Party in Germany would have got to power as they were the only alternative to the Nazi Party.The Communists would have got into power and handed Germany over to Stalin.
This scenario would have been even worse than the Nazis and Stalin would have opened up 'Gulags' all over Germany and they would have filled up with 'class enemies' that would have starved to death.
The holocaust would have seemed insignificant compared to Stalins brutality.

Imagine that somehow we could travel back in time and had the opportunity to kill Hitler when he was a baby, thus preventing the entire holocaust. Would this be a justified course of action? Would we be justified in killing his parents, or his grandparents, in order that he might not be born? Remember that baby Hitler has never done anything wrong, so we would be killing an innocent. And if we are justified in killing him for the greater good, does this not lead us into being justified for actions such as abusing minorities for the sake of majorities??

Any thoughts?

*Has The Dead Zone flashbacks*

I reckon we should get him into artist college, and burn all his dad's anti-semitist pro-war books and stuff before Hitler gets ahold of them. That kind of thing. 'Course, it was a heck of a lot of stuff that made him who he was, so changing just one or two things might not work. I wouldn't kill him, though. He hadn't actually done anything to deserve it back then.

If Hitler was killed as a baby then the Nazi Party wouldnt have reached the level of popularity that it did. So we have a gap. Who would have filled Hitler shoes and since no-one was able to advance the Nazi Party then they wouldnt ever have got into power.
I believe that the Communist Party in Germany would have got to power as they were the only alternative to the Nazi Party.The Communists would have got into power and handed Germany over to Stalin.
This scenario would have been even worse than the Nazis and Stalin would have opened up 'Gulags' all over Germany and they would have filled up with 'class enemies' that would have starved to death.
The holocaust would have seemed insignificant compared to Stalins brutality.

Actually, if the Nazis did not achieve power, the SA would, who were headed by a WW1 veteran and who were had the same views as Nazis. They formed an alliance with the Nazis to attack communists and anyone they did not like on the streets of Munich and else where.

The SA presented themselves as 'gentlemen, unlike those Nazis' even though they thought the same, and carried out the same beatings and killings. The SA was more or less absorbed by the Nazis after the leader of the SA started publically criticising Hitler. Hitler had him killed.

Somebody said about the sides in this world being either good or evil. I'm sorry but the world's just not like that.

The problem with time travel is that if you go back in time and change even the smallest thing, it could completely change the world as we currently know it. Plus, if you go back in time and kill Hitler, you'll create the paradox of time: Hitler won't exist, so you'll have no reason to go back in time, so then no-one will go back in time and he will exist, so then you go back in time and kill him, and then we're back to the beginning in a neverending loop.