Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 10 Nov '11 22:23
    a paradox.. my parents met in the war now if i went back in time shot hitler 1938, chances are they would never have met, but i would save millions, but not be born?? would you if you were in that spot would you shoot hiltler.
  2. Standard member RevRSleeker
    CerebrallyChallenged
    10 Nov '11 22:52
    You've left it too late already, he's been in power for 5yrs...Mein Kampf was a 'bible' to the masses, with plenty of his far from lacking cronies ready to take up the mantle, would Hess really have inherited, I think not..Goebbels most probably, another brilliant orator and propagandist without equal...do you believe the Hitler of '38 actually acted alone, if you did you're a few years shy of his 'true madness'...there were conspiracies against him even at this 'later' stage. I do agree there is a quandary to answer, just what would you do...but given hindsight, if you were actually there and knowing of the consequences, strange though that sounds, I think the wise choice would be to do more than merely kill Hitler, the regime was too strong and can you imagine the vengeance ? After all, the British were so so close in '41, at the Wolfs Lair, but decided he's better alive than dead, THE primary reason the German's would lose the war. Would it have saved millions, I think the same answer applies ??
  3. 10 Nov '11 22:53
    Originally posted by stoker
    a paradox.. my parents met in the war now if i went back in time shot hitler 1938, chances are they would never have met, but i would save millions, but not be born?? would you if you were in that spot would you shoot hiltler.
    No, because you can't predict the consequences of actions, and it's a paradox.

    Paradoxes are bad.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKqd27h7KjM
  4. 10 Nov '11 23:05
    There were plenty of people to take Hitler's place. I think Germany would have been at war with other European countries with or without Hitler. The whole country had a sense of entitlement which made the conflict inevitable. But Hitler's particular ideology and individual abilities probably added to the death count.

    In any case, to answer the question, you would be wiping out more actually existing people than Hitler killed if you jumbled history so profoundly as to prevent the holocaust. Everything we've done and become would be lost to an alternate reality. You would be replacing one universe with another. Maybe self-preservation is in play for me here, but I would opt for the history which arrived organically.
  5. 10 Nov '11 23:33 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Kunsoo
    There were plenty of people to take Hitler's place. I think Germany would have been at war with other European countries with or without Hitler. The whole country had a sense of entitlement which made the conflict inevitable. But Hitler's particular ideology and individual abilities probably added to the death count.

    In any case, to answer the question, eservation is in play for me here, but I would opt for the history which arrived organically.
    Precisely, apart from the fact that history alteration looks very much to be impossible (thankfully)
    As it is impossible to predict the consequences of alterations to history, it is always better to
    attempt to make the future batter from where we currently stand, than try to make the present
    better from the past.

    Case in point.

    The titanic disaster cost many lives, yet the tragedy spurred action on maritime safety regulations and
    practices making such a loss of life much less likely in the future.
    If it had not happened, if you went back and stopped the titanic from hitting the burg, or from sinking,
    then it might be followed at a later date by a much worse disaster, or more likely, a string of smaller disasters
    that would not have had the loss of life they did if the titanic disaster and its subsequent reforms had happened.

    This plus all the people who wouldn't exist due to the altered timeline would mean that from your perspective you
    would be condemning to non-existence the majority of present day humanity if not the entirety of present day humanity.
    Including yourself.

    History is to be learned from, not altered, this is why accurate and unbiased history lessons are important.


    EDIT: If WWII took a different route, if it happened later, or took longer, it's possible that it could have gone nuclear in Europe,
    or that Germany might have got the bomb first.
    We could have lost, Hitler made some big mistakes, maybe whoever replaced him might not have made them...
  6. 11 Nov '11 00:34
    Originally posted by googlefudge
    Precisely, apart from the fact that history alteration looks very much to be impossible (thankfully)
    As it is impossible to predict the consequences of alterations to history, it is always better to
    attempt to make the future batter from where we currently stand, than try to make the present
    better from the past.

    Case in point.

    The titanic disa ...[text shortened]... ve lost, Hitler made some big mistakes, maybe whoever replaced him might not have made them...
    Yeah, and look what happened when Dr. McCoy saved the church woman!
  7. Standard member RevRSleeker
    CerebrallyChallenged
    11 Nov '11 02:41
    Originally posted by googlefudge

    History is to be learned from, not altered, this is why accurate and unbiased history lessons are important.


    EDIT: If WWII took a different route, if it happened later, or took longer, it's possible that it could have gone nuclear in Europe,
    or that Germany might have got the bomb first.
    We could have lost, Hitler made some big mistakes, maybe whoever replaced him might not have made them...
    No they are not, history offers all but invariable tampered with, they offer much more than mere hindsight but rarely taken to the degrees necessary..it's all politics, merely hidden in all manner of untruths and hidden agendas, only for future leaders to take one step further..at their leisure. Then a further step and then perhaps a new technology takes over and it falls a step behind, you can never 'adequately' assume that history is one big lesson because we've basically been there and done it...refer to my first point in hand.
    Well, with regard to atomic bombs in Europe, we won't find out until 2045, the files are closed and the one thing they all actually agreed upon !! The Allies knew full well of the German 'heavy water' procurement in Norway, what they didn't know was how advanced the German theory was. The fact they sabotaged the shipping vessel would indicate how confident they were of yet another 'V' weapon...
  8. 11 Nov '11 02:50
    Originally posted by stoker
    a paradox.. my parents met in the war now if i went back in time shot hitler 1938, chances are they would never have met, but i would save millions, but not be born?? would you if you were in that spot would you shoot hiltler.
    Face it, you owe Hitler your existence!!

    Maybe you can join the anti-semitic OWS crowd to repay him.
  9. 11 Nov '11 11:41
    Originally posted by RevRSleeker
    No they are not, history offers all but invariable tampered with, they offer much more than mere hindsight but rarely taken to the degrees necessary..it's all politics, merely hidden in all manner of untruths and hidden agendas, only for future leaders to take one step further..at their leisure. Then a further step and then perhaps a new technology takes ...[text shortened]... he shipping vessel would indicate how confident they were of yet another 'V' weapon...
    I am sorry but having read and reread this several times I have no idea what you are saying.

    Could you please clarify what you mean.
  10. Standard member RevRSleeker
    CerebrallyChallenged
    11 Nov '11 12:14
    Originally posted by googlefudge
    I am sorry but having read and reread this several times I have no idea what you are saying.

    Could you please clarify what you mean.
    I think the crux is, that 'official History' and that that actually takes place, have been political pawns since the birth of the civilised nation...I thought that was clear, perhaps not.
  11. 11 Nov '11 14:33
    Originally posted by RevRSleeker
    I think the crux is, that 'official History' and that that actually takes place, have been political pawns since the birth of the civilised nation...I thought that was clear, perhaps not.
    history is written by the victors, so if they make the loser look bad that becomes the official line. but what seems to happen the victors become a down fall of there own making and then when they are defeated etc
  12. 11 Nov '11 15:39
    Originally posted by RevRSleeker
    I think the crux is, that 'official History' and that that actually takes place, have been political pawns since the birth of the civilised nation...I thought that was clear, perhaps not.
    Ah, and my point was that accurately reflecting history, and learning what actually happened
    was important so that it could be learned from.

    Thus saying altering history, either by going back in time and changing it, or simply altering
    the history books for your own ends is bad.

    It's not that I don't get that history gets altered, I was explaining why that it's a really bad idea.
  13. Standard member Soothfast
    0,1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21,
    11 Nov '11 23:40 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by stoker
    a paradox.. my parents met in the war now if i went back in time shot hitler 1938, chances are they would never have met, but i would save millions, but not be born?? would you if you were in that spot would you shoot hiltler.
    I wouldn't shoot Hitler if handed a time machine and a gun, even assuming it were possible. We cannot know if Hitler's rise was really the worst thing that could have happened at the time. An alternate future may see a thermonuclear holocaust occurring in the 1960s, say, or a Europe overrun by Stalin.

    EDIT: I see others have already brought this issue up.
  14. 12 Nov '11 13:23 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by googlefudge
    Precisely, apart from the fact that history alteration looks very much to be impossible (thankfully)
    As it is impossible to predict the consequences of alterations to history, it is always better to
    attempt to make the future batter from where we currently stand, than try to make the present
    better from the past.

    Case in point.

    The titanic disa ve lost, Hitler made some big mistakes, maybe whoever replaced him might not have made them...
    At the link below, John Reilly reviews Gavriel Rosenfeld's The World Hitler Never Made, an analysis of the various hypothetical alternative histories (allohistories) of Word War II.

    http://www.johnreilly.info/whnm.htm

    "The book covers four classes of hypotheticals: Hitler wins; Hitler loses but escapes; Hitler is deleted from history; and hypothetical Holocausts (both Holocausts avoided and Holocausts that were more complete). According to the cumulative table of sources in the Appendix, this survey covers 116 works, including novels, short stories, essays, films, television productions, and some academic histories."

    Reilly is quite astounded by the fact that most writers of alternative histories seem convinced that the alternatives to the things that really happened (awful though those were) would have been worse.

    "There are some features of the allohistory of the Third Reich that seem to defy explanation. For instance, almost all stories in which the Holocaust is eliminated by well-meaning time travelers turn into variations of “The Monkey’s Paw”: when you get three wishes, the last one will be “put it back the way it was!” There is also a strange consensus that the result would have been much worse if the July 20 Plot to assassinate Hitler had succeeded."

    Googlefudge seems to be thinking along those lines in his post. Since I'm the grandson of German Jewish refugees, who would never have come to England if it hadn't been the rise of the Nazis, I am one of those people who owe my existence to Hitler. On grounds of pure self-interest, I don't suppose, therefore, that I'd pull the trigger. But if we're arguing on strictly hypothetical moral grounds, I don't see why the lives of "the majority of present day humanity" take precedence over the probably more numerous lives of those who would have existed had World War II been averted.

    Perhaps it is just as well that history can't be altered and we don't need to make those choices.
  15. Standard member RevRSleeker
    CerebrallyChallenged
    12 Nov '11 15:00
    Originally posted by Teinosuke
    At the link below, John Reilly reviews Gavriel Rosenfeld's The World Hitler Never Made, an analysis of the various hypothetical alternative histories (allohistories) of Word War II.

    http://www.johnreilly.info/whnm.htm

    "The book covers four classes of hypotheticals: Hitler wins; Hitler loses but escapes; Hitler is deleted from history; and hypothetica ...[text shortened]... st as well that history can't be altered and we don't need to make those choices.
    Very good, have you read Cyril Kornbluth's novella 'Two Dooms' ?