Would you save kid Hitler?

[Lord Woodlouse]

But you would also have to deal with Stalin to prevent a C&C Red Alert situation where to Soviets dominate Europe.

Which is probably bollocks.

If Germany rides out recession it probably becomes a reasonably successful state. Britain, France and Germany probably form an axis which Stalin would be shitscared of provoking.

But I am not willing to tkae that chance. Besides, I wonder what the USSR would be like with Trostky in power.

I know I can't spell his name.

Trotski, as in to trot, and then head off down that slope. Um...

It's interesting, certainly. I honestly don't know if it would be better or worse, in the long run. I certainly feel Trotski was more sane, and competant. *shrug* Who knows.

Stalin, while a paranoid nutbar, was not stupid.

I mean without Hitler on their doorstep even Stalin is liable to be a bit more laid back. The main problem arose from the great urgency to pull out the stops.

[Admiral Johnason]

A similar question was asked in the movie "Come and See". The main character, even witnessing the horrors of genocide in Belorussia, refused to make the last shot when his hallucination turned into a Baby Hitler.

I would not kill him.

Was the Second World War necessary?

I believe yes. It made people across continents more aware and careful, has shown Nazism and Fascism to the world. Yes, millions died, but humanity gained an awareness against nazism, racism. Today fascism would be a hundred times more welcome across the world if not for the War.

On a side note, I wouldn't be born either if not for the War.

There's also the point that the Nazis would still come into existence in one form or another without Hitler.

[Patrick Degan]

Even if you eliminate Hitler, the fascist ideology still becomes a rising political movement in Europe and in Japan. There is no guarantee of no world war occurring if Hitler's not around and it may occur with more modern weaponry including atomic bombs a decade or two later than in RL. And even if it doesn't, the principle of democracy faces a major challenge from the principle of authoritarianism which grows into respectability and political power in the world.

Aside from that, ends do not justify means. This is the same basic question posed by the Grand Inquisitor in Doestyevski's The Brothers Karamazov: To ensure a brighter future, are you willing to murder or even torture to death one helpless individual?

[Azrael]

I think it would be more beneficial to destroy whatever opportunity in history that created germany's mass exodus into religious/fascist bigotry, rather then simply kill the figurehead. That way, you won't get a hitler to "hit".

If you have the power to travel to the past, it's presumed you can also see/ travel to other moments in history besides the birth of hitler - why settle for the door prize when you can go for the win?

[Patrick Degan]

I think it would be more beneficial to destroy whatever opportunity in history that created germany's mass exodus into religious/fascist bigotry, rather then simply kill the figurehead. That way, you won't get a hitler to "hit".

Ah, then the project is to prevent the rise of Christianity in Germany in the first place.

[Surlethe]

I think it would be more beneficial to destroy whatever opportunity in history that created germany's mass exodus into religious/fascist bigotry, rather then simply kill the figurehead. That way, you won't get a hitler to "hit".

Ah, then the project is to prevent the rise of Christianity in Germany in the first place.

While we're at it, let's just nip Christianity in the bud to begin with.

[Batman]

While we're at it, let's just nip Christianity in the bud to begin with.

I'm game.

[Big Orange]

I think saving Hitler's life could leave open the possibilty of an even worse tyrant seizing power in Germany and still start a world conflict. Perhaps an alternative National Socialist/Facist regime does not make the same tactical/diplomatic and political mistakes comited by the "real" Nazis and are successful in taking over all of Eurasia. There would perhaps even be a wider genocide with the populations in Russia and Africa being heavily culled, alongside the British colonies and the Americas being levelled by nukes.

[Batman]

I see an awful amount of 'could', 'might' and 'maybe' in the arguments put forth by those advocating not taking out Hitler. Yes, taking Hitler out of the picture might result in just as much if not more harm being done. NOT taking Hitler out WILL inevitably result in the harm we know from history.
Until you can show there's a reasonable chance that taking Den Führer out of the picture makes things worse I fail to see why it is a bad idea.

[Azrael]

While we're at it, let's just nip Christianity in the bud to begin with.

I'm game.

Seconded. I've got a delorean with a broken but fixable flux capacitor. We'll all fit inside, but one of you is gonna have to come up with a "Mr. Fusion."

Ah, then the project is to prevent the rise of Christianity in Germany in the first place.

I almost want to say, "not necessarily" but that's only because I'm aware of the Allegorical/Humanist Christianity we have today-the same breed of blasphemous anti fundieism that only survives because of the protections allowed in democracy. The same kind that would not have been available to ancient german moderate/liberal christians in the feudal systems of old.

Considering that, we would probably have to kill a whole lot of people to prevent the rise of the Christofascists and in the process eliminate scores more from history than hitler would have ever touched. Using a move out of hitlers playbook just for our ends wouldn't be immoral, unethical and unacceptable from a historical standpoint.

Bit it sure would be fun! Now I'm driving obviously, so who's running backseat gunner on this? Patrick? Surlethe?

[Azrael]

Ghetto edit: Because proofreadin's fer 'tards [\Southern Hic]

our ends would be immoral, unethical and unacceptable from a historical standpoint

[Admiral Johnason]

I think it would be more beneficial to destroy whatever opportunity in history that created germany's mass exodus into religious/fascist bigotry, rather then simply kill the figurehead. That way, you won't get a hitler to "hit".

Ah, then the project is to prevent the rise of Christianity in Germany in the first place.

While we're at it, let's just nip Christianity in the bud to begin with.

But if you kill Jesus, you would be play into his hands. You would have to keep him alive.

[Batman]

While we're at it, let's just nip Christianity in the bud to begin with.

But if you kill Jesus, you would be play into his hands. You would have to keep him alive.

How so? If you kill Jesus the whole Christianity thing never happens in the first place. How pray tell is Hitler going to profit off a religion that doesnt exist?

[Patrick Degan]

I see an awful amount of 'could', 'might' and 'maybe' in the arguments put forth by those advocating not taking out Hitler. Yes, taking Hitler out of the picture might result in just as much if not more harm being done. NOT taking Hitler out WILL inevitably result in the harm we know from history.

Until you can show there's a reasonable chance that taking Den Führer out of the picture makes things worse I fail to see why it is a bad idea.

And since it's not possible to predict the effect of doing so, logic demands erring on the side of caution.

[Sharp-kun]

No. Things might turn out better, but there's an equal chance of something worse happening. I'd rather not take the risk. Also it fucks with a lot of peoples lives for better or worse.

We all know what happened in Red Alert

[Admiral Johnason]

While we're at it, let's just nip Christianity in the bud to begin with.

But if you kill Jesus, you would be play into his hands. You would have to keep him alive.

How so? If you kill Jesus the whole Christianity thing never happens in the first place. How pray tell is Hitler going to profit off a religion that doesnt exist?

You make a joke about the Cruifixition and no one gets it.

[Battlehymn Republic]

I've always wondered what it would be like to live in a Neoplatonic Nietzschean world.

[Anguirus]

Until you can show there's a reasonable chance that taking Den Führer out of the picture makes things worse I fail to see why it is a bad idea.

Well, let's think about it. Essentially, you are dooming everyone born after 1940 to non-existence, because you are changing things so radically that no one will turn out the same. The time-traveler is altering his own world in a way that is impossible to predict or control. Moreover, he has not necessarily prevented World War II or the Holocaust...but if they do occur (European anti-Semitism and German postwar resentment are still there, not to mention every other future Nazi), they will do so in a form unfamiliar to the time-traveler.

From the time-traveler's point of view, killing anyone as prominent in the course of future events as Hitler is breathtakingly. madly irresponsible. With one act, he destroys his entire world, and does not necessarily improve things in the new world from 1938-1945. Hard-liners are still likely to take power in Germany, and without Hitler's irrationaity to lose them the war they may well do far better than they did.

Only with some sort of magic future-predicting device is the killing of Hitler defensible. The time-traveler is sacrificing billions of lives...from a 1940 POV potential lives, but to him real living, breathing humans...to possibly save millions of lives by averting WWII and the Holocaust. But no evidence suggests that killing one monster will positively influence the future. Hitler was unusually charismatic. That's it. He didn't create the social pressures that led to the war, and he wasn't the only man who could possibly have taken advantage of the deep-seated fears of the German people.

You have asked the impossible. I can't show a "reasonable chance" that killing Hitler will "worsen" the future, because it is flat-out impossible to predict what will happen. What I do believe is that it is madness to alter the world so swiftly and completely based even on a "reasonable chance" that killing Hitler would save millions of lives. And also worth thinking about: the billions born since WWII that the time-traveler condemns to non-existence or a vastly different existence without their knowledge, permission, or approval.

[Xon]

So you're saying, grandfather paradox left aside, you consider your own life more important than the lives of the 12 million victims of the Holocaust (add another 20-40 million if we consider Hitler and NSDAP as being culpable for WWII overall, which is open to argument)? The morality of this escapes me, please explain.

Fuck the Holocaust victims, consider everyone else since WW2 and how fucked the world was after the war and the hidious choices the retards in charges of the world have done.

[Xon]

Well, let's think about it. Essentially, you are dooming everyone born after 1940 to non-existence, because you are changing things so radically that no one will turn out the same. The time-traveler is altering his own world in a way that is impossible to predict or control.

Depending on how time travel in the OP works, the very act of time travelling has invalidated your origin point. So whats the loss from rolling the dice once more, when they need to be rolled anyway

[wolveraptor]

If this is supposed to be an ethics question, then you need to specifically define the effects of taking either route. If this is a history-buff question that asks how the world would be different without Hitler's presence, then count me out.

[FedRebel]

If he dies, then assume that Germany goes on to see better days, and in general a lot less people die. Ignore the alternate history ramifications, no Stalin rolls across the Continent.

Assumption and self-induced ignorance are dangerous things, with Mussolini and Stalin still in play Europe has a fair chance of seeing a continental war in its future. Trying to delude yourself into thinking that the Weimar Republic will pull out of the depression is also a risk; Germany has just as much of a chance that'll fall to a fascist or communist regime

Would you save the life of a kid who grows up to kill millions? Or would you let him die?

He would live, without being able to determine with any actual certainty that his death would lead to "happy fun time Europe", I'd rather not take the risk that someone else just as sadistic but more intelligent and/or ruthless takes his place

[Darth Raptor]

I have a strict policy of total non-interference when it comes to time travel. Hell, I really shouldn't even be in the early 20th Century. I'd be paranoid about accidentally crushing the wrong bug, let alone deliberately causing a massive paradigm shift in the course of world history.

[K. A. Pital]

I'd rather not take the risk that someone else just as sadistic but more intelligent and/or ruthless takes his place

Yeah, like Herr Himmler.

[Cos Dashit]

No; if Hitler wasn't around to come up with his idea, someone somewhere would have come up with one similar. Rather this happen in the 40's and him get stopped, than have it happen 100 years later where a full scale war for any reason would have far more negative ramifications.