English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

If you could travel back in time to when hitler was an innocent child, would you kill him and save millions of lives but be killing an innocent child or would you let him live and let him kill millions, The choice is YOURS........................

2006-07-31 10:00:12 · 26 answers · asked by spud 3 in Society & Culture Other - Society & Culture

26 answers

Perhaps this is the altered timeline.

Perhaps the one where he was killed as a child led to an even worse outcome.

How would you know?

2006-07-31 10:04:31 · answer #1 · answered by 'Dr Greene' 7 · 0 0

You forget that there was two others that wanted to have control over the world at the time Hitler was doing his thing. All three were working against one aother for control over the world. Hiltler only killed the Jews cause he says that they are the reason that they lost WW I.

If you go and kill him as a child you are no better than he was. Yes he kill inocent people but so are you by killing him.

I wouldn't worry about what it would be like if he died. He will get his payment come judgement day.

2006-07-31 10:08:35 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

The usual models of Time Machines are very conservative .while you can put the gear forward of backward you cannot get down anywhere much less disturb the status quo in any way not even accidently trample a worm on a jungle path for the unforeseen chain effect they may cause. This TM is a super model.

If I come acrooss the orphan toddler Adolf I would pick him up and fondle him.Those post-war( World War I) days when defeat had destroyed the German economy making Marc not worth the paper it was printed on.The joke went that it was cheaper to burn Marc notes as fuel than go in for coal.I would have endeavour to guad him from this aftermth ,admitted to a good school provide enough for him so that he does not have to do odd jobs like house paining for a living. They say victory has many fathers but defeat has none though the tendency is to throw the blame on somebody's head. The natural scapegoat of the days were the Jews who were better off. I would try to initiate the young man in basic economics and disabuse his mind about trading such charges.They tell me that you cannot bend the course of time by such patch and that the inertia of time is so absolute that it would have seen its way to flow through the inexorable set channels.I would beg to differ.I feel that Old Man Time would have bent down to see who was trying to pull at his gown to lead him on a new road. Perhaps, perhaps he would have smiled through his long moustache and indulged me.

2006-07-31 10:50:31 · answer #3 · answered by Prabhakar G 6 · 0 0

No, I wouldn't kill him.

I think I would befriend him and help him find an art tutor, since he originally wanted to be an artist. His preserved architectural drawings (for art school entrance exams)are really quite good--way ahead of the curve for the average 16 year old. He didn't get into the art school because he didn't include people (very hard to draw) in his drawings...too, bad.

At least this way, given the extreme way he committed himself to projects, we might have just ended up with another famous artist. Besides, someone even worse could've ended up as the head of the Nazi Party...like Reinhardt Heydrich, every bit as clever has Hitler and a raving psychopathic lunatic beyond even Hitler's scope. Who knows???

2006-07-31 10:12:46 · answer #4 · answered by stevenB 4 · 0 0

That is a very tough question to answer. Killing a person for a crime not yet committed is wrong.

Recently on the news Andrea Gates was found not guilty due to insanity for killing her children. She claimed that she was preventing one of the children from becoming a serial killer. What if she was right? We will never know.

So I guess we can never answer your question since we do not have the capability, at this time, to travel back in time.

2006-07-31 10:07:52 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

no it's not my choice to make.....things happen for a reason. Even the horrific things. I cannot play God because God does not interfere with free choice. While Hitler was an evil man who skewed the perception of what Germany was dealing with after WWI as well as people's perception of the Jews, Christians, homosexuals, and handicapped; his role here on earthc served a purpose. Not the horrific role he played but the challenge he presented to us to not allow his leadership to continue. We accepted that challenge and won. Yes, lives were lost. That's the outcome of free will. And we will continue to stop evil leadership....which is why we are in Iraq.....

2006-07-31 10:10:11 · answer #6 · answered by miatalise12560 6 · 0 0

If I were to kill him I may be killing myself in the future or worse. I could be opening the door to a greater monster, one pushed aside by Hitler's quest for power. History is what it is and should not be played with.

2006-07-31 10:07:24 · answer #7 · answered by william m 2 · 0 0

There is only one real answer to this question and that is kill him and save all the innocent children he killed.

2006-07-31 10:08:46 · answer #8 · answered by Artful Owl 2 · 0 0

I don't know about Hitler, but I've always wanted to Quantum Leap Bill Gates.

2006-07-31 10:08:52 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

how can u tell what the world would be like if hitler hadnt exsisted.. maybe he unknowingly killed someone that may have grown up to have destroyed the earth in some way!!

2006-07-31 10:03:18 · answer #10 · answered by shelokay 4 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers