Agnostic.com

22 2

If you had a time machine would you go back into the past to kill baby Hitler or would you try to change him? I would do the latter personally. Baby Hitler at this point has not yet been molded by bad ideas and if I could guide him away from it I would take a stab at it. I don’t know why some folks get offended by this honestly. What would you do though?

  • 1 vote
  • 5 votes
MrControversy 7 Jan 22
Share

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

22 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

4

I'd arrange for Hitler to be accepted by the Academy of Fine Arts in Vienna. His application was denied twice.

Best answer!!!

3

I'd travel 9-10 months before he was born and have sex with his mother.. 2 birds, 1 stone.

3

Go even farther back. 1000 armed soldiers, weapons and fuel and conquer the known world. Introduce sciences, medicines, vaccines. Create a social democratic limited monarchy (you know what's best) and destroy religion and encourage education. Make peace and trading partners in the far east and Americas and Southern Africa. No colonization.

There was a limited series comic book, Pax Romana, that dealt with a similar scenario.

"Vatican-backed research has discovered the secret of time travel. With it the Church plans to fix the future by altering the past. They send a warehouse of modern weaponry and enhanced soldiers to Rome in 312AD. Plans change quickly as the cardinal in charge of the mission is shot."

3

Thinking outside the box: get him accepted into art school.

I have seen some of his drawings on post cards...he was not all that bad. His rejection relative to art school may not have been the result of insufficient talent, but MAY have been due to the fact that he was not sufficiently high enough on the class ladder, his father only being a minor bureaucrat.

3

It's just a joke, but sure why kill him. You could also just abduct him or imprison him all his life. The error that is made here is that Hitler is not seen as a human being but as some evil monster from hell. Without him there would still have been fascists, there would still have been other dictators who could have done the job. The environment that brought us Hitler also brought us a population that supported him and looked the other way when their neighbors got sent to be killed. Killing baby Hitler accomplishes nothing. If you want to make the world a better place try to fight the the evils of today. Hitler is dead, he lost, but racism, bigotry and stupid conspiracy theories are alive and well.

Dietl Level 7 Jan 22, 2019
2

You are not considering what things would be/could be inadvertently changed by your actions in the past. You "change" Hitler, millions more live increasing the current population level in the U.S. and elsewhere resulting in your parents thrust into poverty due to increased competition...you die from malnutrition either as a baby or before being delivered. Another scenario...WWII is averted, Nixon rather than John Kennedy is not elected president. Communists still our enemy, put missiles in Cuba, Nixon orders invasion, Soviet commanders fire their nuclear artillery at the invading American army, which results in a world wide nuclear war. The point being, any change, no matter how small, could change world history, let alone a major thing like changing Hitler's actions would most certainly change what is the norm now.

2

Imagine this, Hitler grows to be a reasonably sucessful happy painter with a few liederhosen strewn babies and a jolly wife. Oh the while the Eugenisists in UK and US became increasingly more vocal and strident in their views. Bouyed by popular enthusiasm and belief. People like Winston Churchill, Susan B. Anthony amongst many others were great proponents of the Eugenics movement and even by the begining of WW2 were talking about enforced sterilisation of some groups in society. Elizabeth Cady Stanton, an abolitionist, was utterly opposed to black sufferage and in some parts of EU enforced sterilisation continued until the 1970s! Hitler was bound to happen. The mix was already in place, the (poorly gathered) science was there. I suggest had we (like John Lennon suggested) loved and cared for Hitler, someone else would come to the fore. The same as Gadaffi, Osama bin laden and yes even Trump. These people are just wired wrong, the trick is to not be around them when they go off!

2

I would do neither. Changing the past will change the future in unintended ways. Remember Star Trek the Next Generation and the "Prime Directive". Too bad they didn't listen to wiser people. They kept letting their emotions get the better of them.
"The Prime Directive (also known as Starfleet General Order 1, General Order 1, and the "non-interference directive" ) is a guiding principle of Starfleet, prohibiting its members from interfering with the internal and natural development of alien civilizations"

Which they broke with abandon.

Its not real ya know

@Amisja If you saw my pointed ears you would think otherwise.

@dahermit Live long and prosper 😉

@Beowulfsfriend Of course, just like today everything is about emotion. This is why we will probably never reach this point in history.

2

baby hitler was doomed from the start, with a violent, horrible father and a mom who had lost so many babies that by the time she got to little adolph she was ready to smother him with love and protection. you could not change, with your time machine, her death, which affected him horribly, or his later parkinson's. i'm not saying killing him would change anything either. his rise took place in the perfect storm(trooper) and if it hadn't been he in charge, someone else might have been. (mussolini rose to power without hitler's help, right?) so you probably couldn't change him, and killing him wouldn't have worked. and who KNOWS what other things would've been affected, not all for the better.

if you ever get that time machine, go back and tell the jews who said "what're they gonna do, kill is all?" to get out while they can, or rise up against the nazis. tell the nonjews to rise up, and show them what's going on. neither tactic might work but that would be what to try.

g

That's why I would kidnap him.

@Carin so goebbels would be the fuehrer. you'd have saved hitler maybe, not the world.

g

1

You have a bunch of "ifs" regarding his change..."try" and change him..."If" I could guide him...and what IF you couldn't change him or guide him? You wasted a perfectly good time machine and at least 6 million Jews and countless others died because of him...I guess your conscience wouldn't bother you because you tried right? 🙂 To me the scary question is why you picked poor Hitler, because he's been so misunderstood? You can't come up with any other mass murderers to "save?" Let me guess, your next question is on an Israeli boycott? If you could "change" Charles Manson would you? If you could "change" the KKK would you?---there are good people on both sides you know 🙂

lerlo Level 8 Jan 23, 2019
1

Go back and find whoever orchestrated the treaty of Versailles and kill them at birth therefore Germany wouldn’t have become economically oppressed and Hitler wouldn’t have relevant.

Never forget that money is the root of all evil you can either give people too or little but when you do both those with too little will get theirs and that’s when their suffering will be felt by all.

Actually the Versailles Treaty was not the cause of the collapse of the post WW1 German economy, it was the colossal mismanagement that caused the collapse, after all I don't think that the Great Depression was a result of WW1, do you?

Very interested to find out why people are fixated on Hitler, not to excuse or condone his behavior, but Stalin was the better mass murderer, but no one seems to want to mention that fact - why is that?

@Pompey The treaty might not have been the exact cause but it did cause their government to act as they did which resulted in giving the Nazi party validity to their pursuit to take control of the government.

Russia had a revolution but the Germans actually executed a coup. And due to the restrictions from the treaty Germany was motivated to align with Japan in order to build their armament.
Just saying that there’s a bit of cause and effect.

People are fixated on Hitler because he was entitled as the face of evil even though some of his underlings were the ones who actually committed some of the world’s most unthinkable acts against other humans.

But as far as Stalin or even Russia for that matter goes they’ve been this cloak of isolation and at the time a self induced social segregation from the rest of the world.
So most people especially in America kind of adopted an out of sight out of mind when it came to the Soviet Union at that time.

And it wasn’t until the arms race and McCarthy era did we actually feel any direct impact from them.
But we want to get technical I believe that the amount of native Americans killed by us is just as devastating and let’s not forget king Leopold of Belgium who slaughtered millions of people with the Congo.

There’s people actually don’t anything about him what he did he hasn’t been publicized as much as the others. Honestly it’s like gun violence in this country.
There’s hundreds of murders involving guns everyday they get almost no national coverage but when some guy or kids start shooting up white suburban America they won’t shut up about it.

@48thRonin Actually it was the people reacting the circumstances created by their government, but you do make some valid points. I think that the issue today is that we are de-sensitised to violence and death. How did Stalin put it? "One death is a tragedy, a thousand deaths are a statistic", nowadays we deal in statistics, not humanity.

1

Given what he was capable of, would it be worth the risk? I'd strangle the little shit.

1

After changing Hitler, I'd change Tr$mp.

1

Neither by killing or changing him could lead the way to someone far worse

1

Neither. I'd make sure his parents never met.
Just like I'd make sure 45's parents never met.
If it's just one person, you just make sure their parents never meet.
If the person is never born, they don't need to be changed or killed.

Even if you could delay them from having sex for a couple of seconds a different sperm would probably get to the egg and someone else would be born. The butterfly effect is a wonderful thing and says that if a time traveler went back to the time around Hitlers birth, and did virtually nothing, then the smallest act would still change the whole course of history. Which would also of course, mean that the time traveler would never be born in the first place, so the time traveler could never go back. Its called the time travelers paradox.

@Fernapple All true.
That's probably one of the biggest reasons we haven't discovered how to do it. Or maybe someone has...

LOL

@KKGator We would never know, our history could change every few seconds and we would not be aware of it. Now that's a thought that could mess with your mind.

@Fernapple Exactly!!!

0

A couple of magic mushrooms in his morning oatmeal would do it.

0
0

Take Baby Hitler to England. If he had been on the winning side of WWI, nobody would have ever heard of him.

BD66 Level 8 Jan 22, 2019
0

It's a tough one.

Actually killing a child is horrific - and even with the young Adolph it would still be horrific.

But could he be 'changed'? Maybe or maybe not. If not, of course, then utter horror ensues.

To be honest, if I had a time machine, I would want to travel back even further - and offer Adolph's father a condom.

Kidnap him & take him to another environment.

0

Hindsight is everything...thank goodness we can't go back...it is interesting to imagine all of the connected lives and events that would ultimately be affected but the scenarios are endless enough to keep writers busy for a bit...

0

I wouldn't have time to fuck with that shit ? to many fun things to do and find out ? now in answer to the question, change. killing isn't my bailiwick or should I say for forte.

0

Those are my only two options? I wouldn't do either. If I changed Hitler, something else would have happened instead and it might be better or worse than Hitler. I have no way of knowing and it's not my job to save the world. If I were going to try to change something, it would be circumstances that I know of personally and that I would have a chance of deducting a different outcome to.

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:271399
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.