Yes, not enough trust for the Voice (none at all in fact), not enough knowledge of the results of killing Hitler. There’s also the likelihood of erasing myself and everyone else now alive, depending on how time travel works (I have no reason to trust any claims the Voice make son the matter).
A Voice that tells me to kill people is more likely to be something that needs medication than something real. And even if it was real, what are its motives? Why me, what am I being set up for? Why not transport Hitler to the center of the Earth by itself instead of trying to use me as an assassin? It’s all very suspicious.
For all I know the Voice is a Nazi sympathizer that is trying to create a more successful Nazi conquest. I’ve no reason to trust that a mysterious Voice that wants me to kill people for it agrees with my definition of “better”, or for that matter to trust it to be honest with me.
If I start hearing voices and it appears that I’ve been transported 100 years back in the past I’ll assume that I’ve either suffered a psychotic break or that I’ve developed a brain tumor and am hallucinating.
WTF is an automatic pistol? And why the hell would I want a handgun capable of full auto operation?
I’d still grumble about a semi-auto, as I’m more of a revolver guy. But yeah, Adolf is getting two in the head, and then I’ll have approximately 9 minutes and 58 seconds to enjoy the view before magic takes me elsewhere.
If I don’t use all my 20 people to save, could I get rich or something? Not sure I know 20 people worth saving…
The more I think about the, even if WWII never happens because of Hitler’s death, the less I like the idea of killing more than six billion people to save mere millions. In terms of casualties at least I’d be guilty of more deaths than Hitler dreamed of causing.
If you have that low an opinion of people, why are you bothering to shoot Adolf?
Because I serve Light. Always have. Dude is evil…perhaps the most evil human being in all of history. If I have a shot at Hitler, I could not pass it up without denying all I ever have been.
And I don’t see changing history as killing people now in existence. I see it more as starting an alternate timeline thing…with the bonus of getting to take The Druidess and a few others with me.
What does OTL mean? I gather from context that you mean the new present will be better than the old present? Anyway, if that’s the case, and if I somehow know or decide that the voice is trustworthy (a legitimate concern), then sure, I’ll shoot.
No, they really wouldn’t have. If you read up about the actual chain of events that brought that specific group of crackpots and oddballs to power, there’s just no way it happens without Hitler. I’d expect some manner of right-wing, nationalist party to become the most powerful for at least a time, but that’s a far cry from National Socialism.
I don’t think you can equate the birthing of a new timeline/alternate universe/whatever with the murder of everyone else in some alternate timeline. It’s not 6 billion people that you killed, but rather just something that turns out not to have happened after all. There’s probably no reason WWII had to happen, nor, if there was, need Germany have been as successful and as destructive as it was.
I mean, look at it from the other direction. Say a contemporary of Hitler’s had killed him; is he responsible for the “death” of all the people who would have existed in 2011 if he hadn’t? Does it make a difference if, through time-travel, he spent a month in 2011 before returning to his own time and shooting Hitler? It shouldn’t, I think. So why would it make a difference if the shooter’s point of origin was 2011 instead of 1910? Causing someone not to be born isn’t the same thing as killing them … and, if you disagree, shouldn’t you be pro-life?
Not really, but even if it was he* wouldn’t have wound up in a position to implement (or even put forward) such a plan without a Hitler, and even he does wind up as a prominent member of some alternate-universe German government, it’s not likely the idea even comes to him in that context, nor that it would be something he could realistically propose as a course of action.
It’s really hard to get to the Holocaust without Hitler.
=> or whoever’s plan it really was, not that it was the brainchild of a single individual in a vacuum.
“Original Time Line”, I expect. Sci-fi jargon, I’ve seen it plenty of times before.
Hardly. First, because the point of being “pro-life” is to torment, oppress and kill women; it has nothing to do with protecting anyone. And second, we are talking about a situation were people did exist, and then they don’t exist anymore; not the same thing at all as never existing ever. And the fact that in this scenario you and those 20 people you save still remember them helps demonstrate that yes, those people you destroyed really did exist.
Ah, thanks. Shouldn’t have stopped at the Urban Dictionary page on my Google search; Wiki had the right answer.
Only relative to the shooter; to everyone else, including the people from the OTL, it’s (literally) a non-event. All the usual reasons for why ending a life is a bad thing don’t apply here. (I still don’t think terminology like “ending a life” is appropriate, but the vocabulary, sentence structure, and verb tenses that are needed to talk about time-travel and its implications don’t exist in English.)
Besides, if the shooter is responsible for the “death” of the people from his timeline, then he must also be responsible for the existence of everybody in the new (apparently superior) timeline. What’s so special about the people from the OTL that their existence is to be preferred over that of the people from the alternate time-line?
A Glock 18? For clearing a stairwell full of Hitlers?
I wouldn’t shoot him, because in the timeline I know and am familiar with, I didn’t. I’m not comfortable with the new world being “better” than the OTL. Better according to whom? Some people would think a Mad Max style post-civilisation world was better, or a Huxley Brave New World, or a Marxian worker’s paradise…
Have to admit, I might be tempted to use the gun to smack him around a bit, though. The little shit.
Exactly. Occam’s razor suggests that you’ve gone mad. (Not you,** Ibn Warraq**)
To support this, I offer as evidence the fact that the last time this happened* it didn’t end well: The Wakefield Massacre
How 'bout if I just give Hitler a scholarship to art ‘n’ architecture school? That way when the drugs finally kick in, I’ve just been talking gibberish and handing Reichsmarks to random guys with moustaches.
*assuming for the purposes of the thread that the gentleman was insane and was telling the truth when he recounted his version of events.
I saw a documentary about this scenario once, Red Alert…
Anyway, no - the main reason is that Hitler, while dazzling in his rise to power, was a crap general - see Stalingrad, for instance. You get rid of Hitler, but you still have the ‘1918 stab in the back’ and anti-Semitism that had lingered in Europe for centuries.
TL;DR - you might end up with someone more competent, and therefore worse - this is the reality, regardless of ‘voice’ assurances.
I’d much rather be rid of Chairman Mao, as his stupidity was a net loss for humanity, whereas Hitler’s stupidity allowed us to finish the war quicker.
Think about this: what about the billions who would exist in the new world you would create but would not because you didn’t kill Hitler and thus the Butterfly Effect caused them not to be born?
Why a round trip ticket to kill one guy? Why not unlimited trips back and forth to kill every guy who has screwed things up? Killing one guy ain’t gonna solve anything and might make everything worse.