So I was lurking on another of my favorite websites the other day, The Escapist and noticed a thread that posed a very interesting question: would you kill baby Hitler? It got a number of very good responses (and a number of crap ones) but I found that I couldn't come up with an answer that I couldn't counter-argue with myself. So my fellow roleplayers, I shall ask that thought provoking question to you, slightly reworded.






Alright, you have been given a time traveling device in the shape of a wrist watch. It will only take you to April 20th, 1889, the home of Alois Hitler and Klara Pölzl, in the town of Braunau, Austria-Hungry, to the cribside of a child named Adolf Hitler. It will only allow you five minutes in that time period before it returns you to the current date and runs out of power. It does not have the ability to move more then one person, no matter the size, through time. You have a simple choice, kill the child or let him live.

Please explain your choice.

I feel horrible saying this but I would kill him. He grew up to be totally fine killing thousands of babies himself, so why not just get rid of him and call it a day?

I don't really have a good reason other than those millions of lives that he would take mean more to me than the one life of someone who grew up to be evil. He killed people who could've grown up to be doctors, inventors, teachers, and yet those children never had a chance to live. If I knew that he was going to follow the life path that he did, I would exterminate him before he had a chance to exterminate millions. (Sorry- so repetitive. I can't seem to get a straight thought out today.)

I feel horrible for all the people that were killed in the Holocaust, but I don't think I would kill him. Now, I DO NOT SUPPORT HITLER AT ALL and NEVER will, but we learned from the Holocaust, I think. It's stopped more things like that from happening and hopefully never will anything like the Holocaust happen again.

But, thinking about it, it's a hard choice.

He may have done terrible things in his life, but who knows what would have happened if he wasn't there? Nothing states that someone worse would have come into power, and the same goes for the opposite. In the case of something like this, I would just let him live. I was raised with the belief that no matter how good or how bad, every event happens for a reason, some within our grasp, and some not.

Now, if I knew the outcome of this action, then it would depend on whichever action would ultimately be better for Germany and the world.

Actually, I'd just question why the watch wasn't set to a day when it was Baby-to-be-Kaiser Wilhelm II as opposed to Baby Hitler, since World War I set the scene for Germany's economic despair during the 20's and 30's, which is a very possible reason for Hitler's rise to power. Or perhaps I'd have Wilson's points go through for the Treaty of Versailles. There's a lot of places where this can be changed, so I'm really confused.

Yes!

I'd do it with an appropriate gun for the time period.

Omg! I so couldn't.... I mean... Things all happen for a reason, you know? Those poor people didn't deserve to suffer the way they did, but, looking at how frigging adorable he was as a baby, I would probably give up and return to the present... :(

Zetta wrote:He may have done terrible things in his life, but who knows what would have happened if he wasn't there? Nothing states that someone worse would have come into power, and the same goes for the opposite. In the case of something like this, I would just let him live. I was raised with the belief that no matter how good or how bad, every event happens for a reason, some within our grasp, and some not.

Now, if I knew the outcome of this action, then it would depend on whichever action would ultimately be better for Germany and the world.

Actually, I'd just question why the watch wasn't set to a day when it was Baby-to-be-Kaiser Wilhelm II as opposed to Baby Hitler, since World War I set the scene for Germany's economic despair during the 20's and 30's, which is a very possible reason for Hitler's rise to power. Or perhaps I'd have Wilson's points go through for the Treaty of Versailles. There's a lot of places where this can be changed, so I'm really confused.

Why would you off Kaiser Wilhelm II? He didn't start the first World War, Gavrilo Princip, the Serb that assassinated Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria did. The Triple Alliance (the German Empire, Austria-Hungry and the Kingdom of Italy) was formed in 1882, expanding the Duel Alliance (the German Empire and Austria-Hungry) that was formed in 1879. Germany was required to join the war when the Triple Entente Powers sided with Serbia. The Treaty if Versailles however, that is a major cause of Germany's economic despair.

I would severly damage his brain, then leave. Simple, he would never be smart enough to give my country a bad reputation.

Irish Wolf wrote:Why would you off Kaiser Wilhelm II? He didn't start the first World War, Gavrilo Princip, the Serb that assassinated Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria did. The Triple Alliance (the German Empire, Austria-Hungry and the Kingdom of Italy) was formed in 1882, expanding the Duel Alliance (the German Empire and Austria-Hungry) that was formed in 1879. Germany was required to join the war when the Triple Entente Powers sided with Serbia. The Treaty if Versailles however, that is a major cause of Germany's economic despair.

Who started WWI is debatable, since it's the result of the chain of the Alliance B.S. that goes around Europe prior to it, and a bunch of other tensions between these countries. Wilhelm was also far more aggressive that Bismarck was, which wouldn't lead to anything good in the Alliance deal that was going around Europe. He was also the one who sanctioned that Austria go after the Black Hand, if I am right. The Schlieffen Plan, in order to end the war as quickly as possible, was sanctioned by him and very possibly is one of the reasons behind Germany's defeats. I can go further in depth, but those are some of the big ones.

1000 pardons for my previous post. This subject does stir the emotion in me and can forget to censor myself, hope the following post is acceptable.

_________

No way could I kill a baby, even if it was the baby Hitler. On top of that, I am not entirely opposed to Hitlers world dominating agenda, or his belief that Jews were negative force on his society.

I wish that he had been satisfied with occupying France and stopped there, no need to spread to the UK. I suppose America thoroughly supported the bombing though so its hard to resist.

I am aware this is not a popular view point but there are times where I am sympathetic and supportive to Facist views. It makes me sick to know what Zionist Jews are doing to the world now, so I wish Hitler had more time to complete his final solution..

Although he is responsible for the deaths of millions, you must also consider: the World Wars pretty much sent our technology levels on a quantum leap. I would let him live. Besides, I might tear a hole in the space time continuum if I kill him as a baby. LOL.

Yes the wars were horrible, and yes it would have been nice to save all those wasted lives...

But can you see the major ripples this would have through reality? The more time the more change?

Would the a-bomb have dropped? Would the cold war have happened?

To be honest... events weren't pretty but I like the world we live in, and I don't think I would change it if I had the chance.

I would not kill a baby. Would I kill baby Hitler? No. Why? Because he *was* a baby. Would I kill him if I knew he was going to be a destructive bastard, regardless of who was involved and got hurt over it? More than likely.

I'd have to say that the world is extremely fucked up, and I think any change would be better. I have to admit that I admire Hitler not for the genocide thing, but the almost taking over the world thing. He probably would have if he was smarter, and didn't believe that he was god, and couldn't lose. But I would totally kill Hitler, I mean there's a chance that nuclear arms wouldn't exist, I couldn't resist an opportunity like that.

Look I don't think WW2 was a good thing, but actions from Germany after WW1 were to be expected. They were leftpoor as dirt and God knows what. If someone hadn't taken action it would most likely be right up with the Polish other East-European countries right now. No economy whatsoever. Mistakes were made with the treaties after WW1 that weren't in WW2. If we can go back in time anyway, we should correct THAT! And not Hitler's birth.

Also, WW2 helped us a lot in the medical field. It was a terrible thing back then, but the technologies also have saved many lives since that wouldn't have been had there been no WW2.

This is kind of like a "chicken or the egg" dilemma. Ultimately, Hitler as a baby only has the potential to be the world's most evil dictator. I mean, he was rejected at art school. What if he wasn't? He would have been an artist with a complex. If I could go back in time, I think I might try to divert him instead. But of course, you change one thing and everything changes. Sometimes for the better and sometimes for the worst. That's a really good question and after a lot of rambling, I think I'd rather eat waffles than make a decision.

I would not even go back.

The past is something that we should not change, no matter what has happened. Humanity should progress towards a better future.

I would change history by putting him into a Jewish foster family, making sure he finishes school, is allowed into art school and let Hindenburg do the politics.

I would not kill him because what made Hitler the scourge of the 20th century happened in his developmental years, shaped by a horrific war that consumed many lives then later a sharply declining economic situation where he became influenced by radical and dangerous ideals. All of which eventually allowed him to reach a position where he was able to place them in action.

That being said anywhere along his life's timeline had he made a different choice or a different event had occurred at the key points of development history could be signing praises for him.

We can only surmise what we think would happen if we killed an innocent child who becomes the leader of the Nazi party. We cannot surmise what would have happened had the circumstances that gave rise to the the Nazi party and their leader been different. Given the disastrous situation that Germany was in, it could as easily have been much worse if there was different leader of the Nazi party.

But that is the beauty of IW's question, we are pondering the hypothetical. The "What If".

I wouldn't kill him. One, it would be murder. Murder of an innocent child. At that point he had done nothing wrong, he was completely innocent. If we had captured him after the war, I would have had no problem putting him on trial and excuting him for his crimes, but I just think killing him as an infant would be wrong.

Also, as has been pointed out, it was the experiences in WWI and in inter-war Germany that really shaped him into what he became. For all the evil he actually did he did have the potential to do great good. In fact, he did do great good. He quite literally saved Germany, and got it back on it's feet and functioning again. He also invested a lot of time, energy, and money on scientific development and breakthroughs as well things like arts and cultural. Our world would not be what it is today if it wasn't for Adolph Hitler. We can argue all we want about whether it would have been better or worse without him, but all in all I rather like our world, even with all it's problems. Even WWII itself, as horrible as that conflict and it's aftermath have been have, has helped further human developemont. In fact it is in large part because of Hitler that I have such a great love of Germany and it's people. It's been my study of the Second World War that is really helped develop my interest in Germans and Germany.

Also, you guys might want to look up Command and Conquer: Red Alert and it's setting. The premise of it's plot line is that Einstein discovers time travel and uses it to eliminate Hitler from the timeline, much like we are discussing it here though with different circumstances. Long stary short, the absence of Hitler to provide powerful opposition to his fellow dictator Stalin means that communism spreads through an alternate world war. I can't explain it to well here, but I think it does provide some food for thought about what would happen with Hitler's absence from history.