Let's kill Hitler

Started by The Void June 13th, 2014 11:59 PM
  • 944 views
  • 27 replies

The Void

hiiiii

Male
MOTHA RUSSIA
Seen May 29th, 2019
Posted August 9th, 2015
1,416 posts
13 Years
I'm currently reading this book by Stephen Fry called Making History. It's basically about an alternate world where Hitler was never born.

Given the chance, would you go back in time and kill Hitler/prevent him from being conceived? Or could the consequences be too great?

Alexander Nicholi

work hard, play hard

Age 25
Male
Research Triangle / Jakarta
Seen February 15th, 2023
Posted March 5th, 2021
5,498 posts
13.5 Years
Honestly I'd let it happen as the course of human history would be so severely altered without both world wars, and it likely wouldn't be for the better (think of those who expatriated to America or Britain and changed things drastically there, as one example).

I remember watching an episode of Futurama where Professor Farnsworth created a time machine that the episode's premise was based around. It was funny watching him try to shoot Hitler each time around, since the universe ended and re-created itself identically and he got to do it twice. :)
the beat goes on (ノ^o^;)ノ
ヽ(;^o^ヽ) the beat goes on
the beat goes on (ノ^o^;)ノ
ヽ(;^o^ヽ) the beat goes on
( don’t stop the groovin’ )

Khoshi

とてもかわいい!

Age 24
Male
Sydney, Australia
Seen January 3rd, 2020
Posted October 16th, 2019
2,646 posts
10.1 Years
Hitler's evil deeds brought a lot of law reformation, as the world didn't want this sort of thing happening again. Things like treaties created during the aftermath have some use today. I wouldn't go back in time to end his rule from happening, as it brought along a lot of change after his demise.
Male
England.
Seen December 27th, 2015
Posted August 3rd, 2014
38 posts
9.1 Years
Hitler's evil deeds brought a lot of law reformation, as the world didn't want this sort of thing happening again. Things like treaties created during the aftermath have some use today. I wouldn't go back in time to end his rule from happening, as it brought along a lot of change after his demise.
Totally agree with you.Without Hitler we wouldn't had those new rules put in place and something worse could of unfolded.What happened,happened.Going back and changing it could lead to something worse.
http://www.pokecommunity.com/signaturepics/sigpic471061_8.gif
Age 29
Seen November 5th, 2017
Posted November 5th, 2017
3,499 posts
14.9 Years
Due to the economic, social and political situation in Germany, the fascists would have risen without Hitler anyway. If they hadn't, then the communists would have taken power. The moderates had lost far too much influence and support, so extreme lefists or rightists would always have taken power; or at least forced a civil war like in Spain.

Tsutarja

Age 28
he / him
Florida
Seen 4 Hours Ago
Posted 13 Hours Ago
27,327 posts
13.2 Years
If anything were to happen to prevent events of the future by going back in time, it would always set off effects later on in life. Several things could be different in today's world if it wasn't for Hitler. We wouldn't want a time paradox to happen, so just let history be, and be happy that you were not around to see Hitler's wrath at all.

In other words, no.

seeker

Ireland
Seen November 1st, 2019
Posted May 20th, 2018
10,593 posts
14.1 Years
Some people seem to have been watching too many time travel films. The world wouldn't implode if he weren't to live, most likely.

Uhm, if I had the chance to prevent the deaths of 11 million people during the holocaust (including 1 million children), I'd go ahead and take the consequences of allowing a discriminative, militaristic, totalitarianistic, indoctrinative, oppressive, sadistic, exterminative, enslaving, and, murdering, dictator die.

One thing I would miss though: the moustache.

Kanzler

naughty biscotti

Male
Toronto
Seen April 22nd, 2022
Posted March 11th, 2022
5,957 posts
14.8 Years
There might not be another European War, but Japan would probably still go to war with the US.

I think WWII really allowed the convoluted slate of European power politics to be cleared and replaced with two blocs of blue and red. Without Hitler to take the Nazis to the heights that they achieved, I think Europe would continue to be disunited. I've read this very informative book which provides evidence that Mussolini was extremely opportunistic and could have allied with Britain against Germany.

Would the Soviets carry out an invasion of Europe? On one hand Europe is disunited. But on the other hand they risking the states of Europe allying to balance against it.

What would probably happen is get Japan gets pwned much more quickly, and perhaps even without nukes involved since the US is not distracted with a European war and China maintains its cooperation with Germany and benefits with better training and equipment.

Post-war tensions between China and Japan would be just as terrible as they are now - and perhaps even worse if China ends up in a better position than they did in history and are able to focus their attention on hating Japan instead of immediately rebuilding. The US wouldn't /need/ a Japanese ally against the Soviet Union, especially not when there's a friendly Chinese government. I would say that the region in North Eastern Asia would turn out somewhat like Latin America - China isn't as poor as it is today, but Korea and Japan aren't as rich. There have been great historical tensions in the past, but it all mellows out due to the lack of a Soviet threat and US hegemony.

I'm not sure what would happen to Korea in this scenario. Do the Americans let Japan keep Korea occupied? In any case, no Korean war.

The Void

hiiiii

Male
MOTHA RUSSIA
Seen May 29th, 2019
Posted August 9th, 2015
1,416 posts
13 Years
There might not be another European War, but Japan would probably still go to war with the US.

I think WWII really allowed the convoluted slate of European power politics to be cleared and replaced with two blocs of blue and red. Without Hitler to take the Nazis to the heights that they achieved, I think Europe would continue to be disunited. I've read this very informative book which provides evidence that Mussolini was extremely opportunistic and could have allied with Britain against Germany.

Would the Soviets carry out an invasion of Europe? On one hand Europe is disunited. But on the other hand they risking the states of Europe allying to balance against it.

What would probably happen is get Japan gets pwned much more quickly, and perhaps even without nukes involved since the US is not distracted with a European war and China maintains its cooperation with Germany and benefits with better training and equipment.

Post-war tensions between China and Japan would be just as terrible as they are now - and perhaps even worse if China ends up in a better position than they did in history and are able to focus their attention on hating Japan instead of immediately rebuilding. The US wouldn't /need/ a Japanese ally against the Soviet Union, especially not when there's a friendly Chinese government. I would say that the region in North Eastern Asia would turn out somewhat like Latin America - China isn't as poor as it is today, but Korea and Japan aren't as rich. There have been great historical tensions in the past, but it all mellows out due to the lack of a Soviet threat and US hegemony.

I'm not sure what would happen to Korea in this scenario. Do the Americans let Japan keep Korea occupied? In any case, no Korean war.
The only reason the USSR became as powerful as it was was because of all the weapons and financial support America gave Russia, since Russia was an ally as well. Communism really sucked so I doubt it was enough alone to make Russia a superpower.

About Japan -- I don't think America would have such an easy time beating them. Nuclear power wouldn't come as soon, since the discovery of atomic bombs came mostly from German Jews who were forced to migrate to America; Albert Einstein, for example. With no Hitler to kill them, they'd most likely stay in now either a fascist or communist Germany, and God knows where the plans for a hydrogen bomb will end up.

Thus, with the absence of nuclear power, it's most likely that the US would carry on with Operation Downfall and invade Japan with a full-scale invading force. This would have been the largest amphibious operation in world history, and one of the bloodiest.

As for Korea, it would probably remain with Japan if Japan were to surrender. If not, it would most likely be ceded to America. China would still be communist, and Japan capitalist, with both of them becoming very powerful countries in the present day.

Kanzler

naughty biscotti

Male
Toronto
Seen April 22nd, 2022
Posted March 11th, 2022
5,957 posts
14.8 Years
The only reason the USSR became as powerful as it was was because of all the weapons and financial support America gave Russia, since Russia was an ally as well. Communism really sucked so I doubt it was enough alone to make Russia a superpower.

About Japan -- I don't think America would have such an easy time beating them. Nuclear power wouldn't come as soon, since the discovery of atomic bombs came mostly from German Jews who were forced to migrate to America; Albert Einstein, for example. With no Hitler to kill them, they'd most likely stay in now either a fascist or communist Germany, and God knows where the plans for a hydrogen bomb will end up.

Thus, with the absence of nuclear power, it's most likely that the US would carry on with Operation Downfall and invade Japan with a full-scale invading force. This would have been the largest amphibious operation in world history, and one of the bloodiest.

As for Korea, it would probably remain with Japan if Japan were to surrender. If not, it would most likely be ceded to America. China would still be communist, and Japan capitalist, with both of them becoming very powerful countries in the present day.
China benefited from German cooperation even before the Sino-Japanese war. In fact, if it weren't for the Japanese insistence that Germany stop supporting China (which occured in 1941, a whole 4 years after Japan had invaded China) the Chinese would be much better prepared to resist Japan. Also was the fact that Japan's war in China was unsustainable to begin with. And again, the US in our own historical timeline prioritized the war in Europe over the Pacific.

I doubt that China would go communist. Both the Americans and the Germans supported the Nationalist government. If the Japanese are kicked out of China sooner, then the CCP wouldn't have so readily gained power as they did. What you end up with in China is a US-friendly, capitalist-friendly Nationalist government. Also this means no Civil War, so China begins reconstructing in the mid 1940's instead of towards the early 1950's.

I think it would be highly disingenuous if the Americans return Korea to Japan, but it may be the case that Japan negotiates a surrender since their adventure in the Pacific comes to an early halt. The US doesn't want to invade Japan because it would kill millions, but the Japanese aspirations in the Pacific are finished. Without the bomb, I'm not too sure what would happen.

Would the US invade? Like you said, projections had US casualties in the hundred thousand, upwards of a million, not to leave out Japanese civilian deaths. The US can continue bombing Japan to the Stone Age, as this would alleviate US casualties. I don't think the US would be so pressured to sweep Japan quickly without a strong Soviet Union, so they could drag out the war. That might consequently make the Japanese more sympathetic to the Communists though, so you might end up with a reverse of what happens in history: a capitalist US-friendly China and a communist Japan.

What I think is most likely given this scenario is that Japan ends up negotiating an armistice, since their Pacific hegemony is now a pipe dream, Japan would prefer anything to Communism, and since they actually have something on the bargaining table (allowing the US to avoid a million-casualty invasion). Would Japan go full on peace? That would require a surrender. If the Japanese don't surrender and just go along with an armistice several things can happen. 1) The Soviet threat beckons both US and Japan to put aside their differences 2) Japan goes back to being a hermit state, somewhat like North Korea vs. South Korea, but even more effective since Japan's an island.

In scenario 2 the Japanese government would probably end up collapsing, and who knows what happens then.

In scenario 1 you'd have China, Korea and Japan under a US hegemony. Perhaps there'd be more of a united East Asia and a disunited Europe, very much the opposite of what happened in history.

EDIT: Also I'm not sure why you think Lend-Lease turned the Soviet Union into a superpower. Lend-Lease was just military support. That's all it was. It's like saying that Chinese support for North Korea during the Korean War turned the North Koreans into a superpower. American military support may have helped the Soviet Union defeat the Germans faster, but that's a separate issue to whether the Soviet Union had superpower status to begin with (which they did, with a large population, wealth of resources, Communism being attractive in many European countries, as well as being technologically advanced in the military realm).

Xilfer

Just won't die.

Male
Your mind
Seen May 5th, 2015
Posted May 5th, 2015
1,880 posts
12.7 Years
I'd go back, kill him, and take his place. If it was me, I'd win I could still carry out WWII, thus putting history on a similar course to before (most likely), but prevent the holocaust. I honestly think the holocaust was the cruelest and worst disaster of the war, while the war itself was horrible but had many positive aftereffects. So, if I could do the war but leave out the holocaust, that would be great.

And when the war ends and I'm defeated, I be like "time machine suckerz, cya in 69 years!"

Esper

California
Seen June 30th, 2018
Posted June 30th, 2018
If I could go back and stop Hitler I would. Yeah, the argument is that some good came out of it. Fair point, but is it worth the deaths of so many? No.

I mean, if we didn't learn our lesson because Hitler never got to do anything really bad and we as a world then went on to do something else horrible on the scale of the Holocaust then we could just go back in time again and stop that. Wash, rinse, repeat.

Plus I don't think we need to experience something so horrible to know what the right thing is.

Nick

Seen 4 Weeks Ago
Posted July 28th, 2021
17,572 posts
18.6 Years
Take the chance to save millions of innocent lives? Yeah, I'd go for it. I don't really care what could hypothetically happen if I did that, to be honest. All this is just speculation after all. The world could turned out to be a better place without him also. None of us really know.

I would time travel to his point of birth and stab him in the heart with a knife as a newborn. Very dramatic. Then disappear into the shadows.

Here's an idea. Let's not be ♥♥♥♥♥♥ people.

Poki

Banned

България
Seen February 20th, 2020
Posted September 21st, 2015
2,423 posts
9.8 Years
Wouldn't that lead to huge consequences, though? I've watched vids about how altering the history could ♥♥♥♥ up a lot of things, and it made me think.

We don't know how different the world would've turned out if it weren't for our freund, Adolf. It could've been for good, or bad. Nobody knows what exactly the lack of the Führer could've led to.

The Void

hiiiii

Male
MOTHA RUSSIA
Seen May 29th, 2019
Posted August 9th, 2015
1,416 posts
13 Years
I think it would be highly disingenuous if the Americans return Korea to Japan, but it may be the case that Japan negotiates a surrender since their adventure in the Pacific comes to an early halt. The US doesn't want to invade Japan because it would kill millions, but the Japanese aspirations in the Pacific are finished. Without the bomb, I'm not too sure what would happen.

Would the US invade? Like you said, projections had US casualties in the hundred thousand, upwards of a million, not to leave out Japanese civilian deaths. The US can continue bombing Japan to the Stone Age, as this would alleviate US casualties. I don't think the US would be so pressured to sweep Japan quickly without a strong Soviet Union, so they could drag out the war. That might consequently make the Japanese more sympathetic to the Communists though, so you might end up with a reverse of what happens in history: a capitalist US-friendly China and a communist Japan.
The US would invade. That was their original plan, and they already had the budget, soldiers, scales, etc. to do it. It was the only way to end the war, before the discovery of the nuclear bomb. So yes, millions upon millions of soldiers and civilians would die.

It makes sense for the US to give Korea to Japan if Japan surrendered. Korea's government was completely wiped out at the time, so the peninsula was completely dependent on Japan.

Your knowledge on history is fascinating by the way.

☆Rei☆

Age 26
Female
Nearby my feet.
Seen April 18th, 2021
Posted November 21st, 2018
1,748 posts
13.8 Years
There's a paradox (I forgot which one) in where if you go back in time to kill someone it'd turn out that he/she actually survived and because you attempted to kill them it traumatized that specific person into making him/her do what he/she did that made you go back in time to try and kill him/her.

Shining Raichu

Expect me like you expect Jesus.

Age 32
Male
Australia
Seen October 17th, 2020
Posted December 21st, 2017
8,958 posts
12.3 Years
Selfishly no, I wouldn't stop Hitler coming to life. I'd let everything happen just as it did, because as horrible as the things he did were, they helped drastically with overpopulation.

Google tells me that approximately 11 million people were killed in the Holocaust, which means 11 million people would have become an exponentially larger number of people in the intervening decades as people feel the need to have multiple children.

Overpopulation is my greatest fear on Earth, so as horrible as Hitler was, his actions helped with the numbers game.
Moderator of General Chat

Kanzler

naughty biscotti

Male
Toronto
Seen April 22nd, 2022
Posted March 11th, 2022
5,957 posts
14.8 Years
The US would invade. That was their original plan, and they already had the budget, soldiers, scales, etc. to do it. It was the only way to end the war, before the discovery of the nuclear bomb. So yes, millions upon millions of soldiers and civilians would die.

It makes sense for the US to give Korea to Japan if Japan surrendered. Korea's government was completely wiped out at the time, so the peninsula was completely dependent on Japan.

Your knowledge on history is fascinating by the way.
Must the US "end" the war? If Japan is kicked out of China and the Pacific, they can't really harm anyone. The US could expedite the Japanese defeat by invading at the cost of countless casualties, or they could open the door to an armistice, or simply just starve them out through a blockade. Now that I think about it, a blockade would be the better option. Japan is an island and iirc its navy was effectively destroyed by the time the Americans were considering Downfall. A blockade spares the Americans from breeding resentment that would come out of an invasion. An invasion could incite the populace to resist. A blockade and the ensuing starvation would force the populace to turn against their government.

I'm of the opinion that Korea would have returned to the Koreans. The US and Soviet Union were able to find the right communists/anti-communists to form the North and South Korean governments. The Korean Republic government-in-exile was based in China during the 2nd World War. It's kind of like how the Free French were based in the UK, as was the Polish government-in-exile. The Korean government-in-exile resisted colonialization as much as any other would.

The Void

hiiiii

Male
MOTHA RUSSIA
Seen May 29th, 2019
Posted August 9th, 2015
1,416 posts
13 Years
Must the US "end" the war? If Japan is kicked out of China and the Pacific, they can't really harm anyone. The US could expedite the Japanese defeat by invading at the cost of countless casualties, or they could open the door to an armistice, or simply just starve them out through a blockade. Now that I think about it, a blockade would be the better option. Japan is an island and iirc its navy was effectively destroyed by the time the Americans were considering Downfall. A blockade spares the Americans from breeding resentment that would come out of an invasion. An invasion could incite the populace to resist. A blockade and the ensuing starvation would force the populace to turn against their government.
That may have been the better option, but it certainly would not have been what the US would have done. Like I said, Operation Downfall was already well under way, and both sides were already preparing for the invasion. It was only halted due to the discovery of nuclear power.

I'm of the opinion that Korea would have returned to the Koreans. The US and Soviet Union were able to find the right communists/anti-communists to form the North and South Korean governments. The Korean Republic government-in-exile was based in China during the 2nd World War. It's kind of like how the Free French were based in the UK, as was the Polish government-in-exile. The Korean government-in-exile resisted colonialization as much as any other would.
Most probably the case if Japan did not surrender peacefully. If it had, the US could have made better terms for Japan, and the peninsula could have well been at least an autonomous province under the Japanese government.