ping
Awfully tempting.....but I shall demur...
This coming from the U.K. Guardian? The most left-leaning newspaper not published in Pyongyang? Not wanting to kill Hitler but Stalin? Uh oh, their Kommissars are going to be VERRRRRY angry!
Who takes over Germany if Hitler is assassinated? I suspect there would have been tremendous infighting between Himmler, Goebbels and Goering, none really trusted the other.
What about 0bama Sr.?
Time traveling Nazis are always telling us not to off Hitler...
Killing Hitler(or Stalin) would have changed the world in very significant ways that would alter our circumstances even today.
In 30 years of time travel The Doctor never attempted to take out Hitler. Must be some reason why.
Maybe a time traveller killed a different young German leader, making it possible for the world to get Hitler instead
If God didn’t, why should I?
Without Hitler the left would not have made as much progress in the west over the intervening years, as they successfully (and very unfairly) associated Nazism with the right.
I would insert Barack Hussein Obama into a normal, two parent family.
I’ve dreamed about going back in time and doing away with my ex, but then I wouldn’t have all my kids and grandkids.
Instead, if I had shot her when I first wanted to, I’d have been out by now.
Sadly though, I just dream about her every night. I see her picture in my dreams....... usually on a milk carton or a missing person poster.
I’d be more interested in buying some startup Apple stock.
It would be better to kill Lincoln.
I have actually used this scenario in my college ethics course, when discussing consequentialism in ethics. In the end, I generally convince the class not to kill Hitler, because...
...in the elections that Hitler used to bring himself and the Nazis into power, the other “viable” alternative was Ernst Thälmann and the German communists. If Thälmann rather than Hitler had become Chancellor, Germany and the USSR would have become the Red Axis, which would have eventually conquered continental Europe as the Nazi Axis did, but would also have conquered Britain, since Thälmann wouldn’t have had a reason to split his forces to try to conquer the USSR, and that would have opened up all of the third world to become the second world (i.e., to become communist). By the same token, Stalin, not having to place any forces to his west to block Germany, would have been free to avenge the victory of Japan over Russia, before the Japanese entered China in 1937: the Red Army could have invaded Manchuria and then joined forces with Mao, while the Navy could have recaptured the Kuriles, and perhaps conquered Hokkaido and/or the Tohoku region of northern Honshu. America would have found itself in the position of having to bolster Japan in order to keep the communists from taking over all of Asia, and also in the position of having to fight a two-front war, but against a much larger opponent: a combination of German-British-Russian-Chinese forces. And the concentration camps would have been just as murderous as under Hitler. Bottom line: Hitler was really bad, but the alternative would have been far worse.
Mohamed would be a better target.
If I were to go back in history I’d nailed Mary Lou in the back seat of her 65’ Mustang. Things worked out anyway but just in case I had a do over....
“Killing Hitler” always makes for an interesting ethical debate.
I enjoyed this one singular comment from the article more than the article itself:
“If travel backwards in time becomes possible in the future, then we are already living with the consequences.”
Touche.
And of course, none of us would know it, would we? Suppose some time-traveler from the year 2763 went back tomorrow and prevented the crucifixion of Jesus? We’d all wake up tomorrow believing in Zeus, or Odin, or Zoroaster or whatnot. Heck, maybe we’d all be Buddhists!
If time-travel ever does become possible in the future, I can only imagine there will be only one rule:
DON’T DO ANYTHING!!!! JUST OBSERVE, DON’T INTERACT!