Posted on 11/10/2015 7:34:54 PM PST by jocon307
I did not put words in your mouth. I simply summarized your point to the degree that I could understand it. If your point is not that someone else would appear on the scene who could match the horror and depravity of Hitler, then what was the point you are trying to make?
I merely suggest that it appears unlikely we could have gotten someone as bad or worse. I think Hitler was a sort of "black swan" event.
There were multiple conditions leading up to World War II, only some of which had any direct involvement with any individual, specifically Hitler in this case. Removing Hitler would change none of those, or at least none of the ones with which he was not directly involved. But would those conditions have led necessarily to war? We cannot know that. Would a change in any one of them have led to a different outcome? We cannot know that either. In fact, we cannot know if the removal of any single variable would have led to any specific conclusion.
The premise of Western justice is that action on a perpetrator is based on an action by that perpetrator, obviating the case for action against an infant. Whether that infant is "fated" to do as our own history tells us he did is a completely unfounded premise, based on the supposition that subsequent historical events either (1) would be altered in his absence, or (2) would remain the same despite. We cannot know either case.
So if we accede to impossible premises, first that there is such a thing as historical inevitability and second, that we can possess the knowledge necessary to manipulate it to a desired outcome, then the question whether to murder an infant is not subject to the dictates of Western justice, but rather is the will of the God we are pretending to be. That isn't going to work. The premises are unsound and the case is impossible.
This is not an argument that we would have had WWII anyway or that your "50 million people" would have died in it. It is an argument that we cannot know that and to proceed as if we could is an act of extreme hubris.
Baby Hitler - the only baby the Left doesn’t want to kill
Childishness.
When they invent a time machine, get back to me.
Not to get into the fantasy argument...too far, but we are talking about time travel. None of these arguments have any basis in fact. As best I know, time travel is still a secret project that only George Noory and Art Bell are involved with.
That is true, but it does not speak to the premise, which is that time travel *IS* possible, and that the ability to strike at Hitler as a baby is an option.
This is a logical expression similar to if A=B and B=C then A=C.
If Hitler was a mass murderer and if you can erase him in a previous timeline, then you therefore erase the consequences of him.
More like you just create an alternate timeline in which the mass murder doesn't happen, but do nothing to affect the timeline in which Hitler committed the mass murder.
The theoreticians propose that there are infinite branches in timelines, and this would be just another branch that occurred back when Hitler was a Baby.
But given the premises of the speculation, the only reasonable thing to do is to kill baby Hitler. The odds that someone equally monstrous would appear to take his place are very low in my opinion.
But the timeline contains an almost infinite number of points. You assume that Hitler was the only disaffected WWI vet in Germany. There were hundreds of thousands of them. While he “was” unique in our timeline, he was not in this alternative time line.
Hitler was a subject of his time and environment.
There have been many theories about “time travel and the changes” that would have happened.
In most cases killing an individual might have changed incidents that THAT individual was involved with, but would probably not affect history, because the forces of history are so strong that the movements would have eventually taken place.
So, in my timeline there is another person who rises to power as a radical in Germany (as the environment that spawned Nazism would STILL be there.) We end up in a war. The Concentration Camps might not have existed, but consider the BAD strategic moves Hitler made in the War. If “new Hilter” actually listened to his staff and made just half of the “right” decisions (releasing troops on DDay, NOT sending Armies to Stalingrad and taking Moscow,...that sort of stuff) then the end result would not be different—but the devastation would probably be the same.
The What-if game is fun, but if you make changes very early in the process the weight of those decisions are not HUGE on the outcome.
IF you went back in time to kill Hitler, it would have made more sense to kill him in 1935. The die would have been cast for Nazism, the public was starting to lose their admiration for Hitler, and the military would have taken over and come to a much better end for everyone in Europe.
That is how I deal with timelines. If you are going to suppose that time travel is possible, you can keep going back until you get it right.
I think the chances of getting another leader with Hitler like goals and methods is not very likely at all. How many mass murdering Hitlers do we find in History? They are relatively rare, though they do crop up from time to time.
What are the odds that a spare one would crop up at exactly this same time? Not very likely in my estimation.
I say you take out the known horrific mass murderer, and the odds are very good that there is no spare to replace him.
Two such men occurring at the same time in History is just too much to ask of probability. Black Swans do not come in pairs.
And by the way, are you still of a mind that Islam is tolerable by Western Civilization, and have you noticed the Islamic invasion of Europe?
Stalin, Hitler and Mao.
The top three of all time. All at the same time.
I don’t live in Europe. Taking in that many male refugees of that age is simply insane, no matter their origin or religion.
Technology would be 2 or 3 decades behind were it is now. Both sides invented a lot of stuff to beat each other. Computers and space travel would be the most noticeable.
Stalin was first. He killed 20 million in the Ukraine Famine before Hitler put his boots on. Hitler was next. He killed 6 million in camps, and caused the deaths of something like 50 million through the war he started.
Mao was last. He did not take over China until 1949, and most of his deaths occurred in the 1950s. 80 million or so.
The common denominator is Socialism, but it's ascendency in Germany was pretty heavily dependent upon Hitler. Had he not been there, that power block would have likely been Communist instead of National Socialist, and I very much doubt they would have gotten so far.
As for your point about not living in Europe, that is sort of a dodge of the question.
So I will take it that your opinion has not changed, and you are still thinking that Islam and civilization can coexist.
Hitting it a little early today, aren’t you?
LOL - Hilarious!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.