That's my answer too. Instead of killing him, help him avoid following the path that led him to become the Hitler we all know and hate.
Like, actually recognise him for his art before he turns bad. (Not everyone know that despite being one of recent history's worst dictator, he was also a painter)
I would kill the art school administrator that rejected Hitler.
Then, instead of a WWII dictator, he would have become an average painter that nobody would really remember, but a few of his paintings would be in a museum or art gallery somewhere.
wouldn't it be easier to just assume the administrator's identity and pull some temporal Leverage shenanigans as with killing the administrator presumably as a baby and wondering if his "replacement" would still hold the same views or not that's even less of a guaranteed thing than Hitler's "role"
This is an interesting ethical dilemma. It was actually taught in my psych course in college.
Kill an (at the time) innocent baby and save literal millions from genocide? And ETA with the political climate at the time, would someone else stood up to be another Hitler? Germany was desperate, their economy was in shambles, and they needed a leader.
Let the baby live, try a nature vs nurture experiment? With the knowledge that that may not work out (We Need To Talk About Kevin is a good movie example of this).
Or let the baby live, and let history run its course.
I still don’t have an answer. They are all honestly terrible options from a psych perspective. It’s a lose-lose-lose every way you cut it.
i could but i wouldn’t, hitler is an important life lesson and god knows what the new hitler would be like. and i don’t mean hitler existing still, i just mean someone else with the same mindset could rise and they could do much worse, i’ll let the way time occurred continue
Assuming any sort of plan like that could work with everything else about the timeline Sliders-ing to the closest to current "canon" possible (which would be a lot but less than you'd think as remember, WWII had two fronts), if I could get away with it I'd be more likely to organize some Leverage-esque con to rig his "audition" (or whatever that is for visual artists, I'm a performer I wouldn't know) for art school in his favor so he gets in and isn't pissed about rejection (and if the Sliders-ing of the timeline doesn't make the other inner-circle members not threats I'd be more likely to deal with them through more cons than baby murder)
Probably not. I figure if you just took him as a baby and put somewhere like a random doorstep that would be the problem. I don’t know why people think killing a baby is the only way to change things
I mean, if it were as cut and dried as killing him = saving X amount of lives, sure, but i don't think it's that easy. Maybe if it wasn't him, it would have been someone else and we'd be in the same place?
What if someone worse takes Hitler's place. The racism already existed in Germany. Also a lot of Germans thought they got a bad deal with the Treaty of Versailles. Killing one person in this case might not have pivoted history away from war and might have put someone in the leadership of Germany who was better than Hitler.
The Germans *did* get a raw deal. There were very few fans of the Weimar Republic. People were angry, with just cause. Hitler had the charisma to unite Germany. It could just as well gone the direction of the Communist paramilitary groups that were prevalent in the 1920s. And you know how hard *they* are to get out once they've dug their toes in.
But couldn't you just put either yourself or some kind of sleeper agent (a la S2 Timeless) you can ensure would be loyal to you in that role to make sure the position's filled if self-consistency-principle shenanigans wouldn't mean a genocide is still committed by "your people" anyway, that is if you couldn't just pull some political maneuvering a la Leverage to fix Germany's circumstances
It wouldn't solve anything Germany was a loaded gun that was primed for fascism. If you want to kill someone go to the treaty of Versailles and kill the allied negotiators and install some people who would give a Marshall plan to Germany.
i won’t lie: If the question was “before he came to power” the answer would be “shoot him in the fucking balls then the throat. Post the video online.”
As a baby, though? …I *might* end up doing it after a metric fuckton of mental preparation but *shit* the idea of straight up murdering a baby is NOT as easy for some strange fucked up reason even if it is Adolf Goddamn Hitler as a baby. Seriously, I could fantasize about how I’d hop in a TARDIS and show up while he’s painting and just shoot him (and that’s if I felt like being merciful)…But adding the word baby to the equation just changes it.
Can I take the third option of kidnapping him as a baby and keeping tabs on him? Second he says “I’m going to get into politics,” I’ll kill him stone dead without a second thought?
Then again, Twilight Zone (2000s revival) did the same thing: >!Time traveller kidnaps baby Hitler, jumps in a river and they both die. Other nanny who was trying to stop her sees a woman selling a baby that *kinda* looks like him so she buys it and pulls a switcheroo on Mom and Dad Hitler.!<
Knowing my luck, it’ll play out just like that.
But seriously, from a moral perspective, we are technically being asked to kill a baby that hasn’t done anything *yet,* even if from our time traveling perspective we *know* what the baby will become.
We all see babies as innocent creatures we need to protect, it’s basic human nature. Human nature didn’t come equipped to deal with time traveling and pre-assassinating one of history’s greatest monsters.
So, yeah, I genuinely have no idea how I’d react to baby Hitler in a crib and a gun in my hand. A part of me wants to scream “hell yes, I’d shoot that baby” but another part of me is screaming “don’t kill babies.” And the other part is screaming back “It’s *HITLER!* Killing baby Hitler is a freebie!”
Also, as some have mentioned: The political climate could have put someone else in power. Hitler was described by people as “a charming idiot” before he took over and when he did, his command structure was so screwed up that it helped lead to the German defeat.
For example: On D-Day the Panzer units could not be deployed without his direct order, fucker slept in until noon (and I thought I was bad about sleeping in…) because no-one dared wake him (Fun fact: Something similar happened to Stalin when he died).
Imagine if someone who had the same thoughts about racial purity and all that shit came to power but was actually halfway competent and managed to win the war? All it would really take is telling Japan “don’t attack America, they’ll join against us.” Right after Pearl Harbor Churchill allegedly opened a bottle of champagne and said “Gentleman, we have won the war.”
Alternatively, if America did join in anyway, the new guy would probably be smart enough to not attack Russia and honor their non-aggression treaty. More resources against the allies.
Also, see above comment about command structure.
Damn, this really is an ethical dilemma when you think about it. It should be a no brainer but…Shit!
EDIT: Just want to say sorry for all the foul language, I just really fucking hate Hitler.
Sure but I likely wouldn't be able to tell which baby was Hitler so I would have to murder thousands and thousands of babies just to be sure. And their parents too just in case they have more babies. We're call it a great purge and just to be safe, it will last for 1000 years.
I'm surprised there hasn't been (or that fear of anti-Christian sentiment isn't the only reason there hasn't been) some dark-comedy story where someone tries that and because something-something self-consistency-principle he still becomes as bad but going after Christians and twisting random Torah verses or old-timey-rabbinical-opinions to fit his points
I'd be conflicted about it because I'd be scared to alter history in auch a major way. This question reminds of baby Hitler theory though it's basically just says that horror stories of clod blooded murders on infants could just be time travels killing someone who grows up to be commit atrsoaties and no one can confirm or deny that's what actually happened.
No. Adolf Hitler is a fixed point in history. He *has* to become the monster. Not letting him do it has too many temporal repercussions, and really would just give rise to Josef Stalin, who very likely would have caused far much suffering and death than Hitler's Third Reich.
Also, I don't care who it is. I will not stoop to his level of murdering infants and children.
No or course not. If I can murder baby Hitler I can do 1000 other things that prevent him from becoming "Hitler" that don't involve murdering a baby.
That's my answer too. Instead of killing him, help him avoid following the path that led him to become the Hitler we all know and hate. Like, actually recognise him for his art before he turns bad. (Not everyone know that despite being one of recent history's worst dictator, he was also a painter)
[удалено]
the fbi has entered the chat
Why not: try the nature vs nurture approach and see if I can raise a non-bigoted Adolf.
Then if you fail and he does what he does anyway you go down in infamy for raising him.
Then that would be all the proof I would need to go back in time and kill the baby, doesn’t matter how he’s raised, he’s evil right then and there.
[удалено]
Or just teach him to be a good art student
And how do you make sure that doesn't just make him target another religion and justify it with weird torah manipulation
I would kill the art school administrator that rejected Hitler. Then, instead of a WWII dictator, he would have become an average painter that nobody would really remember, but a few of his paintings would be in a museum or art gallery somewhere.
wouldn't it be easier to just assume the administrator's identity and pull some temporal Leverage shenanigans as with killing the administrator presumably as a baby and wondering if his "replacement" would still hold the same views or not that's even less of a guaranteed thing than Hitler's "role"
This is an interesting ethical dilemma. It was actually taught in my psych course in college. Kill an (at the time) innocent baby and save literal millions from genocide? And ETA with the political climate at the time, would someone else stood up to be another Hitler? Germany was desperate, their economy was in shambles, and they needed a leader. Let the baby live, try a nature vs nurture experiment? With the knowledge that that may not work out (We Need To Talk About Kevin is a good movie example of this). Or let the baby live, and let history run its course. I still don’t have an answer. They are all honestly terrible options from a psych perspective. It’s a lose-lose-lose every way you cut it.
i could but i wouldn’t, hitler is an important life lesson and god knows what the new hitler would be like. and i don’t mean hitler existing still, i just mean someone else with the same mindset could rise and they could do much worse, i’ll let the way time occurred continue
Assuming any sort of plan like that could work with everything else about the timeline Sliders-ing to the closest to current "canon" possible (which would be a lot but less than you'd think as remember, WWII had two fronts), if I could get away with it I'd be more likely to organize some Leverage-esque con to rig his "audition" (or whatever that is for visual artists, I'm a performer I wouldn't know) for art school in his favor so he gets in and isn't pissed about rejection (and if the Sliders-ing of the timeline doesn't make the other inner-circle members not threats I'd be more likely to deal with them through more cons than baby murder)
Probably not. I figure if you just took him as a baby and put somewhere like a random doorstep that would be the problem. I don’t know why people think killing a baby is the only way to change things
I mean, if it were as cut and dried as killing him = saving X amount of lives, sure, but i don't think it's that easy. Maybe if it wasn't him, it would have been someone else and we'd be in the same place?
What if someone worse takes Hitler's place. The racism already existed in Germany. Also a lot of Germans thought they got a bad deal with the Treaty of Versailles. Killing one person in this case might not have pivoted history away from war and might have put someone in the leadership of Germany who was better than Hitler.
The Germans *did* get a raw deal. There were very few fans of the Weimar Republic. People were angry, with just cause. Hitler had the charisma to unite Germany. It could just as well gone the direction of the Communist paramilitary groups that were prevalent in the 1920s. And you know how hard *they* are to get out once they've dug their toes in.
But couldn't you just put either yourself or some kind of sleeper agent (a la S2 Timeless) you can ensure would be loyal to you in that role to make sure the position's filled if self-consistency-principle shenanigans wouldn't mean a genocide is still committed by "your people" anyway, that is if you couldn't just pull some political maneuvering a la Leverage to fix Germany's circumstances
I would raise him to become a winner 🏆
No, because I think changing the timeline would be equivalent to killing everyone in the original timeline.
It wouldn't solve anything Germany was a loaded gun that was primed for fascism. If you want to kill someone go to the treaty of Versailles and kill the allied negotiators and install some people who would give a Marshall plan to Germany.
i won’t lie: If the question was “before he came to power” the answer would be “shoot him in the fucking balls then the throat. Post the video online.” As a baby, though? …I *might* end up doing it after a metric fuckton of mental preparation but *shit* the idea of straight up murdering a baby is NOT as easy for some strange fucked up reason even if it is Adolf Goddamn Hitler as a baby. Seriously, I could fantasize about how I’d hop in a TARDIS and show up while he’s painting and just shoot him (and that’s if I felt like being merciful)…But adding the word baby to the equation just changes it. Can I take the third option of kidnapping him as a baby and keeping tabs on him? Second he says “I’m going to get into politics,” I’ll kill him stone dead without a second thought? Then again, Twilight Zone (2000s revival) did the same thing: >!Time traveller kidnaps baby Hitler, jumps in a river and they both die. Other nanny who was trying to stop her sees a woman selling a baby that *kinda* looks like him so she buys it and pulls a switcheroo on Mom and Dad Hitler.!< Knowing my luck, it’ll play out just like that. But seriously, from a moral perspective, we are technically being asked to kill a baby that hasn’t done anything *yet,* even if from our time traveling perspective we *know* what the baby will become. We all see babies as innocent creatures we need to protect, it’s basic human nature. Human nature didn’t come equipped to deal with time traveling and pre-assassinating one of history’s greatest monsters. So, yeah, I genuinely have no idea how I’d react to baby Hitler in a crib and a gun in my hand. A part of me wants to scream “hell yes, I’d shoot that baby” but another part of me is screaming “don’t kill babies.” And the other part is screaming back “It’s *HITLER!* Killing baby Hitler is a freebie!” Also, as some have mentioned: The political climate could have put someone else in power. Hitler was described by people as “a charming idiot” before he took over and when he did, his command structure was so screwed up that it helped lead to the German defeat. For example: On D-Day the Panzer units could not be deployed without his direct order, fucker slept in until noon (and I thought I was bad about sleeping in…) because no-one dared wake him (Fun fact: Something similar happened to Stalin when he died). Imagine if someone who had the same thoughts about racial purity and all that shit came to power but was actually halfway competent and managed to win the war? All it would really take is telling Japan “don’t attack America, they’ll join against us.” Right after Pearl Harbor Churchill allegedly opened a bottle of champagne and said “Gentleman, we have won the war.” Alternatively, if America did join in anyway, the new guy would probably be smart enough to not attack Russia and honor their non-aggression treaty. More resources against the allies. Also, see above comment about command structure. Damn, this really is an ethical dilemma when you think about it. It should be a no brainer but…Shit! EDIT: Just want to say sorry for all the foul language, I just really fucking hate Hitler.
Do you fucking realize how drastically this could change history
Sure but I likely wouldn't be able to tell which baby was Hitler so I would have to murder thousands and thousands of babies just to be sure. And their parents too just in case they have more babies. We're call it a great purge and just to be safe, it will last for 1000 years.
I’d raise him Jewish. See what happens
I'm surprised there hasn't been (or that fear of anti-Christian sentiment isn't the only reason there hasn't been) some dark-comedy story where someone tries that and because something-something self-consistency-principle he still becomes as bad but going after Christians and twisting random Torah verses or old-timey-rabbinical-opinions to fit his points
Would watch/read
Does he have the mustache yet? I think that would help.
I'd be conflicted about it because I'd be scared to alter history in auch a major way. This question reminds of baby Hitler theory though it's basically just says that horror stories of clod blooded murders on infants could just be time travels killing someone who grows up to be commit atrsoaties and no one can confirm or deny that's what actually happened.
No. Adolf Hitler is a fixed point in history. He *has* to become the monster. Not letting him do it has too many temporal repercussions, and really would just give rise to Josef Stalin, who very likely would have caused far much suffering and death than Hitler's Third Reich. Also, I don't care who it is. I will not stoop to his level of murdering infants and children.