rethink it: Be thankful Hilter was born?

[compl3x]

The fact so many of our advancements have to come out of the desire to annihilate our enemies should underscore just how pathetic our species can be.

[NightScreams]

I find it a moot discussion since it's impossible to really know what life would have been like without Hitler. I would theorize that some member of the third reich would have taken over his position anyway and probably not have done much different. It wasn't just all Hitler ya know, a lot of Germans wanted the Jews out of their territory and wanted to take over France as well and probably wanted to take over other places too so I don't doubt the war would have occurred without him.

One could also theorize we might have been better off without Hitler. It might have eased paranoia of Americans, we might have avoided other confrontations with other countries, perhaps not even have the cold war with Russia since both countries obtained many of their scientists that ended up behind the technology that pushed it into place.

 

It's difficult to say what types of policies and laws we have now that were rooted from paranoia of govt officials and some citizens throughout the past that may have had further roots stemming from WW2. But what we have now is a govt that doesn't even trust it's citizens and likes to do shady things behind everyones back while at the same time getting into the worlds affairs while feeding us a bone to chew on so were pacified enough to let them get away with whatever they want while telling us its for our own freedom, not that our laws today provide the freedom we once had right after WW2 or nothing.

 

I don't think all the tech from WW2 has provided the world with anything but war propaganda and people wanting to take control. That's all America is, always wanting to have total world control...kinda like what Hitler wanted huh.

[Nick H. Supervisor]

Be thankful he did what he did? No thanks. Yes, history and therefore the present would potentially be different, but we can't say whether it would be for better or for worse. As NightScreams said, it's a moot point because we can't change it, we'd be better off learning from what happened and taking steps to making sure such things don't happen again. I'm looking at you, North Korea.

[Vykranth]

NightScreams and Nick H. are right: this is a moot point.

 

There is a basic flaw in all these what-if time travel scenarios: almost anything you want can be imagined: dreams or nightmares.

It is like 'what would <Some Person> say/do: one is projecting his own desires on such an errand.

 

What if Hitler never existed, of course, History would be totally different, would it be better or worse? Hell if I know

[Rohdekill]

One could easily argue that if hitler had not been born, a few of the million lives spared could have had the cure for cancer or the cure for the the common cold.  Our current status of technology could actually be 50 years behind for all we know had he not killed several children who may have ended putting Einstein to shame.  One will ever know.

[firey]

He did.. or had others... do horrible things.  But i recall correctly.. he did pull Germany out of a huge debt crisis (caused by WW1) and did bring quite a bit of order to the country itself.

[Sadelwo]

I think if it wasn't for Hitler, there would be no Geneva convention, majority of eastern Asia would be speaking Japanese and Europe would still be divided with little conflicts ever so often. As stated earlier what was meant to happen has happened, the only thing we can do is learn from the past and avoid mistakes of those before us. On a related note I was watching this video and thought it pretty neat.

 

The Illusion of Time

 

The vid is about an hour but its worth it.

[HawkMan]

Normally I would have refrained, but there's a hole in your logic, If someone born as a result of hitler, went back in time to prevent the birth of hitler, the timeline would dictate said person would not be born in the world known as is, therefore 'said person' would not be alive to go back in time to prevent hitler's birth...

 

Maybe maybe not...

 

personally I would say no. 

 

When he goes back in time and stops the event that creates him, sure he won't exist in the future. But the older him has already been created in the past then. He can't simply fade out of existence. You could argue you can't change anything cause anything you change will be the way it already happened you just didn't know. But if Timetravel where possible and you travelled back in time to abort yourself. you wouldn't exist in the future, but the old you that was sent back in time and created earlier int he timestream would still exist even if the events that created him before you where sent back no longer will happen.

 

alternatively the time paradox might be an option, and killing Hitler will create a new alternate timestream, where you don't exist, but you still exist(or did before you where sent back) in the original unchanged timestream. 

[Torolol]

if theres no Hitler, Europes will be completely conquered by International Communism.

There will be no atomic bomb, as the idea of atomic bomb are arrives to FDR thru prosecuted Jewish scientists in germany,

with no atomic bomb, American would not easily stops the Japs on pacific fronts.

[McKay]

You're clubbing Mandela and Gandhi with the rest? :s

 

Even if you consider war a necessity for accelerated scientific advancement, there's no saying we wouldn't have had other wars without Hitler around and reached the same results quicker or better. Also if there were no Hitler and no world war who knows how many brilliant people would have survived or been born who'd have made quantum leaps in various fields?

 

Bah, all completely useless conjecture anyway. I'm not thankful in the least that Hitler was born, no matter the advancements made that I'm certain would have come about nonetheless. I also don't agree with anyone who says they'd prefer the war to have happened pointing to these advancements. Those aren't in any way recompense for the millions of deaths. No justification for war, period. I think I'm gonna step out of this thread now, nothing more to discuss really.

 

I didn't use scientific research as "justification". I said I'd want everything the same because we have no idea how bad the world could be without ww2. An even worse person could have risen to power, some of the people who died might have been worse. It'd be too risky to change history on that scale. So I said it's best to stick with the devil we know. E.g our current world. 

[derkim]

Well... Humans need always a disaster to learn that there are better ways. Hitler is an Example for one of a lot disasters.

There is one Problem with Hitler, we can see and hear on videos what he said and did. We can't do that with the doings of Napoleon or the kings of England or... the inquisition.

So Hitler is the first worst-case character we can realise. But I realise a lot of stupid things today too.

 

Hitler changed the word after him. We got the NATO, EU and UNSC....

 

But is the world better because of him and his doings? I don't think so.

 

I see the USA and Russia who are duel who has the most and the best atomic bomb.

I see an economic with poor people who don't even have water.

We have Human rights but every country who signed that is spitting of it when they just watch what Kim jong un is doing in North Korea (and other in other countries).

I see that military is most important for the most of states who think they are modern, rich and clarified

I don't see the will to fight against the poorness, homelessness or the miss to have a basic health care.

 

I don't see a better world after Hitler. We live the same life than before the world wars. On every places in the world we have wars because of religion, oil or because someone think he know the better way for a country to bring "democracy".

[HawkMan]

if theres no Hitler, Europes will be completely conquered by International Communism.

There will be no atomic bomb, as the idea of atomic bomb are arrives to FDR thru prosecuted Jewish scientists in germany,

with no atomic bomb, American would not easily stops the Japs on pacific fronts.

 

ummm, no, no and no. 

[ctebah]

with no atomic bomb, American would not easily stops the Japs on pacific fronts.

Nope. America didn't need the A bomb to defeat Japan at all. They just needed someone to test it on.

[Draconian Guppy]

Well everything has a way of balancing out, what goes around comes around eh?

[Ironman273]

By coincidence I just finished reading Stephen King's 11/22/63 which is the story of a man who finds a tear in time and decides to stop the assassination of Kennedy.  His logic is that the assassination triggered Vietnam which took a lot of lives.  If interested you can read the wikipedia entry here but the rest I'll put in spoilers:

 

He does stop the assassination and when he comes back to present there is basically a nuclear wasteland because George Wallace was elected after Kennedy and escalated a nuclear war.  Kennedy's peaceful ways decline his initial popularity which allows a more war-centric leader be elected.

 

So you never know...

[The Evil Overlord]

Maybe maybe not...

 

personally I would say no. 

 

When he goes back in time and stops the event that creates him, sure he won't exist in the future. But the older him has already been created in the past then. He can't simply fade out of existence. You could argue you can't change anything cause anything you change will be the way it already happened you just didn't know. But if Timetravel where possible and you travelled back in time to abort yourself. you wouldn't exist in the future, but the old you that was sent back in time and created earlier int he timestream would still exist even if the events that created him before you where sent back no longer will happen.

 

alternatively the time paradox might be an option, and killing Hitler will create a new alternate timestream, where you don't exist, but you still exist(or did before you where sent back) in the original unchanged timestream.

Wow, that's actually an impressive, response, you have my thanks, I enjoyed reading that, I have always thought the 'you' that would go back in time to prevent 'your' birth would then cease to exist once the timeline caught up, anyone around you at the time would have one hell of a story to tell, like how they were influenced by what would be considered a ghost, some person got involved in a then.present event, changed said event, and afterwards, disappeared. I just happen to believe the paradox theory on this matter, I know not to mess with things beyond my understanding, even something as theoretical as time travel.

[+E.Worm Jimmy Subscriber¹]

I see absolutely no good debating it. As a person whose family fought in the ww2, I can say that there was no good coming from it.

 

EDIT:

However, the only argument I am willing to entertain, is that, without Hitler, it would be Stalin invading Europe. and I doubt that Europe would be able to stop the Russians.  Hitler's army was not ready for russian winter.  No such issue in Europe. So as least, currently, we have one maniac stopped. Stalin would have being much harder to stop, if he started attacking first.

(and yes, he has being planning to invade west, he was amassing lightweight tanks on the west borders.  the ones that were designed to fight on europe soil, and did no good on the russian front, when pushed there by German attack)

[The Evil Overlord]

I see absolutely no good debating it. As a person whose family fought in the ww2, I can say that there was no good coming from it.

 

EDIT:

However, the only argument I am willing to entertain, is that, without Hitler, it would be Stalin invading Europe. and I doubt that Europe would be able to stop the Russians.  Hitler's army was not ready for russian winter.  No such issue in Europe. So as least, currently, we have one maniac stopped. Stalin would have being much harder to stop, if he started attacking first.

(and yes, he has being planning to invade west, he was amassing lightweight tanks on the west borders.  the ones that were designed to fight on europe soil, and did no good on the russian front, when pushed there by German attack)

<off topic> My Grandfather served as well, I understand </off topic>

[MorganX]

He did.. or had others... do horrible things.  But i recall correctly.. he did pull Germany out of a huge debt crisis (caused by WW1) and did bring quite a bit of order to the country itself.

 

Not really. It's a lot to get into on an online forum, but if they hadn't gone to war, their economy would have collapsed.

[MorganX]

Nope. America didn't need the A bomb to defeat Japan at all. They just needed someone to test it on.

 

That's absolutely ridiculous. Did America take the opportunity to use it as a learning experience, yes. In fact, the volume of radiation sickness was a complete surprise, and a human test is the only way to have learned that at that time.

 

While you are correct that they did not need the bomb to defeat Japan, they defeated them the old fashioned way, they did need the bomb, two in fact to force Japan to surrender and save millions of lives that would have been lost invading Japan and forcing a surrender the old fashioned way.

 

After the first bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, Japan STILL would not surrender and vowed to fight to the death with every last Japanese citizen if the mainland was invaded. Over a million would have dies. After the second bomb was dropped, the Empower finally surrendered after haggling to maintain the institution of the emperor and in opposition to many of his general who wanted to fight to the death. Remember Kamikazes and such. That generation of Japanese were nuts and committed many atrocities on defenseless indigenes peoples of the regions.

 

If you've got a problem with America, fine, have the balls to just come out and say it. But don't @#$##in rewrite history, at least not without studying it first.

 

Newsflash, there are sick demented mother######ers in the world who just like to murder people whom they have power over. And they won't stop murdering them until someone stops them. At one time in history that was the Japanese empire. And it took TWO atomic bombs to make them stop making war.

[The Evil Overlord]

That's absolutely ridiculous. Did America take the opportunity to use it as a learning experience, yes. In fact, the volume of radiation sickness was a complete surprise, and a human test is the only way to have learned that at that time.

 

While you are correct that they did not need the bomb to defeat Japan, they defeated them the old fashioned way, they did need the bomb, two in fact to force Japan to surrender and save millions of lives that would have been lost invading Japan and forcing a surrender the old fashioned way.

 

After the first bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, Japan STILL would not surrender and vowed to fight to the death with every last Japanese citizen if the mainland was invaded. Over a million would have dies. After the second bomb was dropped, the Empower finally surrendered after haggling to maintain the institution of the emperor and in opposition to many of his general who wanted to fight to the death. Remember Kamikazes and such. That generation of Japanese were nuts and committed many atrocities on defenseless indigenes peoples of the regions.

 

If you've got a problem with America, fine, have the balls to just come out and say it. But don't @#$##in rewrite history, at least not without studying it first.

Oh, I'll admit, History isn't my major, but I thought Japan did surrender after the Hiroshima bomb drop, and Nagasake was to record what they failed to record because some equipment malfunctioned during the first drop, is this incorrect?

[MorganX]

Oh, I'll admit, History isn't my major, but I thought Japan did surrender after the Hiroshima bomb drop, and Nagasake was to record what they failed to record because some equipment malfunctioned during the first drop, is this incorrect?

 

That is incorrect. They did not surrender until Nagasake.And even then many of it's military leaders did not want to but the emperor had enough.

 

And don't forget, the US helped rebuild Japan into the economic powerhouse it is today. I don't have a problem with getting some history wrong, it's the anti-American sentiment. America is not perfect, and does it's share of dirt (including our own civil history), but historically America has been most willing to fight and die for others.

[The Evil Overlord]

That is incorrect. They did not surrender until Nagasake.And even then many of it's military leaders did not want to but the emperor had enough.

 

I don't have a problem with getting some history wrong,

Ok, I didn't know that, thanks

[ctebah]

That's absolutely ridiculous. Did America take the opportunity to use it as a learning experience, yes. In fact, the volume of radiation sickness was a complete surprise, and a human test is the only way to have learned that at that time.

While you are correct that they did not need the bomb to defeat Japan, they defeated them the old fashioned way, they did need the bomb, two in fact to force Japan to surrender and save millions of lives that would have been lost invading Japan and forcing a surrender the old fashioned way.

After the first bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, Japan STILL would not surrender and vowed to fight to the death with every last Japanese citizen if the mainland was invaded. Over a million would have dies. After the second bomb was dropped, the Empower finally surrendered after haggling to maintain the institution of the emperor and in opposition to many of his general who wanted to fight to the death. Remember Kamikazes and such. That generation of Japanese were nuts and committed many atrocities on defenseless indigenes peoples of the regions.

If you've got a problem with America, fine, have the balls to just come out and say it. But don't @#$##in rewrite history, at least not without studying it first.

Newsflash, there are sick demented mother####ers in the world who just like to murder people whom they have power over. And they won't stop murdering them until someone stops them. At one time in history that was the Japanese empire. And it took TWO atomic bombs to make them stop making war.

Operation meetinghouse killed 100K in a single bombing raid. That's more than either a bombs. That invasion that the US used as an excuse would never need to happen. US could have firebombed the entire Japan with minimum casualties, after all their houses were made out of paper. The atomic weapon was completely useless. But it has to be sold to the world because it was a horrible decision.

[MorganX]

Operation meetinghouse killed 100K in a single bombing raid. That's more than either a bombs. That invasion that the US used as an excuse would never need to happen. US could have firebombed the entire Japan with minimum casualties, after all their houses were made out of paper. The atomic weapon was completely useless. But it has to be sold to the world because it was a horrible decision.

 

It wasn't useless. It only took two bombs and two cities, instead of "the entire Japan." And just so you know, Japan was still fighting across the globe, that's why the nation had to surrender, more than those "firebombed" in Japan would have died, even if it were as simple as set the paper nation of fire, which it was and is not.

 

I do believe America chose the route of fewest casualties to end a war with a nation gone mad, willing to kill and die before surrender. Additionally, it is because of that that these weapons are NOT used today. If it hadn't happened, and we hadn't used it against a warring maniac, someone would have eventually probably not as discriminately and calculatingly as America did.

 

Believe what you like, no one can stop armchair generals. The only thing we know for sure, the world was saved from evil and tyranny by America and it's allies, whom America also saved.

 

BTW, Japan ONLY surrendered after Nagasaki because America gave in and let the Emperor maintain his status. Japanese culture at that time was insanely about honor and tradition, the whole nation was prepare to go Kamikaze before surrender or losing the Emperor. It was the Emperor who called the surrender, not the people or the generals, for cultural reasons. Some historians also believe the Japanese believed after Hiroshima, America had use the ONLY A bomb it had, wrong.