12 Nov '11 20:27>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Let%27s_Kill_Hitler
Originally posted by SoothfastHitler's rise, with all its manifold and appaling consequences, was probably the worst thing that has ever happened in the whole course of human history. So while we can't know that the alternative would have been been better, we can hazard a bloody good guess.
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.
Originally posted by TeinosukeHitler's rise was a consequence of the Great War, the loss of Kaiser Wilhelm, the inevitable nationalistic fervour within Germany.. The Versailles Treaty saw to that, the Allies demanded war 'penalties' far beyond Germany's worth and the people starved and revolted. Hitler was one of a number and a political doctrine sweeping vast swathes of Europe, the rise of Fascism. Lessons learned from WWI, little, 'we' affectively created the monster and, until he turned his eye to Russia, he almost succeeded.
Hitler's rise, with all its manifold and appaling consequences, was probably the worst thing that has ever happened in the whole course of human history. So while we can't know that the alternative would have been been better, we can hazard a bloody good guess.
Stalin was only able to overrun half of Europe because the Western powers had b ...[text shortened]... ithout the rise of Hitler, Communism would probably have been confined behind the Carpathians.
Originally posted by stokerI would have shot Hitler on the spot! As Star Trek's Mr. Spock once said: " If one were to invoke logic, logic clearly dictates, that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few...or the one" Thankfully you did not have to make that decision!
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.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungI always felt a great degree of sadness for Neville Chamberlain, 'peace in our time' declared upon reaching the supposed Czechoslovakia deal to keep Anglo-German interests entirely mutual and never to see war between 'our two peoples again'...there was even a naval alliance agreed. Hitler assumed, months later, that the waffen SS facade of Polish aggression would be enough to keep the British from investigating further.Churchill however, had other ideas and the chaos theory took route overnight..Chamberlain resigned a wounded man, one from which plagued him and some historians suggest it led to his early death..he was good man, he wanted peace at all costs and fought hard for it but never lived to see Hitler's just deserts. A pact with Hitler was not worth the paper it was written on, he conned everyone.
Adolf Hitler assumed Anglo-Saxons would support him for cultural reasons. Since the English and associated nations did the right thing and opposed him he had no chance.
Originally posted by TeinosukeI think a nuclear war would be worse. Billions killed, the near destruction of the biosphere, the whole bit. If we fiddle with history by removing Hitler, one might in fact occur in the alternate timeline. Humanity came very close on more than one occasion in the 20th century. So while it's fashionable to posit that nothing is "worse than Hitler," in the present analysis that cannot be granted as being even moderately probable.
Hitler's rise, with all its manifold and appaling consequences, was probably the worst thing that has ever happened in the whole course of human history. So while we can't know that the alternative would have been been better, we can hazard a bloody good guess.
Stalin was only able to overrun half of Europe because the Western powers had b ...[text shortened]... ithout the rise of Hitler, Communism would probably have been confined behind the Carpathians.
Originally posted by twhiteheadThe level of certainty required aught to be proportional to the level of damage caused if wrong.
Its funny how nobody actually wanted to tackle the moral dilemma directly.
The question is:
Given the chance to save millions in exchange for your life would you willingly give up your life. This is a special case in which 'your life' includes not only your future, but your whole existence.
I do get the qualification that everyone is going for ie: ...[text shortened]... ions, it is not worth the risk.
So what if you are sure? And how sure would you have to be?
Originally posted by stokerI think you should spend more time writing and proof reading your posts.
given that my question was a paradox time travel back in time to 1938 before the war and gas chambers etc. it would be that in shooting him i do not exist and many more like me, but would men women and children that died would go on to live it would balance out. how would i feel if i did not shoot and watched the outcome faceing each child go to its death.
...[text shortened]... ve the chambers of horror would be devastating. so would i shoot since this is a paradox i would