- If you find yourself suddenly gaining access to a time machine, what’s the first thing you’d do? If you said “kill Adolf Hitler”, then congratulations; you’re a science-fiction character. Actually, the whole “access to a time machine” thing suggested that already, but the desire to kill Hitler clinches it. Any time-travelling sci-fi character (at least ones created by Western society) seems to want to kill Hitler, so much so that there’s a trope about how it’s impossible.
That attempting to kill Hitler has become such a common sci-fi plot device speaks volumes. What about Stalin? He was arguably worse, killing 20 million of his own people to fuel his ideology. But no, Stalin went about his business unmolested by time travellers, all of whom are busy targeting Hitler.
It’s understandable. Who wouldn’t want to prevent the holocaust? It’s probably the worst thing in history. And I only say “probably” because I don’t know all of history, and the human capacity to be awful should not be underestimated. But as noble as it seems, killing the Fuhrer via time travel is a terrible idea, for real-world reasons, not just those in fiction. So should you get hold of a time machine and make plans to kill Hitler, here are some reasons why you shouldn’t.
What does the article writer care? Considering that the fact that a time traveller has already killed hitler in an infinite amount of alternate worldlines, it doesn't seem like it's all that problematic. This worldline wouldn't change at all (hitler died in his usual fashion), and time travelers wouldn't/couldn't effect it at all. It bothers me when people bring up killing hitler, but not because of the reasons listed (which were all terrible). The real problem is "why would you care?". Killing hitler would drastically change things, for better or for worse. On top of that, you are already risking your life for what? To kill hitler before he gets famous and then you wouldn't get any recognition. Or perhaps you kill him at the height of it all, but why wait? It's egotistical at worst, and pointless at best. Anyone who answers "kill hitler" as what they'd do with their time machine obviously never thought much about the question. And that disappoints me as a time travel fan.
"It’s probably the worst thing in history" yeah I know you say probably because you dont know all of history, but what about the nuclear explosions in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, then again neither is worse than the other, there are almost similar types of suffering in each case, but many times this action is overlooked like it was nothing that happened there
This is a very good point. I also think people forget about the Japanese internment camps in the US, not that they were as horrible as the concentration camps, but they are often glossed over in history. There have been some great stories told and movies made in the US that tell the human side of the holocaust. This hasn't been done with the bombings at Hiroshima/Nagasaki. Probably because nobody wants to see a movie about how their own country committed such a horrendous act.
Its mentioned in the piece:Say whoever replaced him was ineffectual and the war ended with reduced loss of life and destruction. In this timeline, maybe no German rocket scientists ended up in the US. The space programme loses some of its best minds, and happens more slowly (or not at all?) The space race resulted in a breath-taking amount of scientific advancement and spinoff technology,
To this I say so? I would trade NASA for just Bruno Schulz .
Do you drive on Radial tires? thank NASA. So much of what we use today or consider normal is part of the inheritance of the space program.
I would not trade 6 million lives and the destruction of multiple cultures for radial tires. I stand on my statement. Have you read the street of crocodiles? Way better than the moon landing. I would rather have another book by Schulz than Nasa. You throw Israel into the deal if you want.
I guess the point I'm trying to put forward is that we can't make those kinds of trade-offs and comparisons. Or, we can, but it's a fruitless exercise. We can't know how many things would be different, or how much better or worse circumstances would be with the removal of an event as significant and world-changing as WW1 / WW2 (the first affects the second significantly). Maybe there would be a rise in anti-semitism elsewhere in say, the US, and it results in the death of millions more jewish, LGBT and black people than occurred under the Third Reich. Maybe The cold War turns hot and there's total nuclear destruction wiping out the entirety of human life. Maybe things are great, Germany manages to pull itself out of the greatest economic depression ever and they become an agrarian society. Bruno Schulz survives, but his next book kind of blows. There's no way we can say what would happen, nor is it possible to follow the butterfly effect and see what would happen if these events occur. instead we have NASA, founded with a group of people who weren't necessarily good people (indeed, Werner Von Braun is an incredibly problematic figure), but ended up doing a lot of great things and influencing the world in what I consider a pretty positive way. but that's just, you know, my opinion, man.
Agreed but to think how the world turned out is good is a value judgement and to me a bit of a Just World fallacy. There is no bomb without WWII. We don't know that NASA influenced the world in a positive way we only have a sample of one. We do know That Mr. Bruno is incapable of writing a bad story. (edit removed a phrase I put in to show that I am not trying to be unpleasant because it made me seem like I was trying to be unpleasant)