Differences between men and women

11 comments

• PhantomGeek

  •

  9 years ago

  Hate to say it, but I'd probably have a problem killing a young Hitler. What I'd probably want to do is remove him from post-WWI Germany and put him some place where he might not grow up so twisted. Suffocating the baby, I wonder if they took that cue from the series finale of "MASH." And pimping out the daughter to feed the family -- another yikes!
• georgmicrodong

  •

  9 years ago

  @PhantomGeek: You're not alone. That was my thought as well when I read the article.
  
  I'd certainly do *something* preferably as early in his life as possible. On the other hand, who's to say removing Hitler wouldn't allow someone worse to take his place?
  
  Turn it around, what if *Hitler* was the solution to a problem we don't even know about? That the occupants of a future even more horrible than the holocaust put him in power for our benefit?
• mikeya02

  •

  9 years ago

  Wow, George, sounds like a Twilight Zone episode. I didn't know you got high..... so who put the US military in charge?
• gawker

  •

  9 years ago

  I remember a story that Britain, after breaking the secret code of the Germans during WW II, learned of a town about to be bombed by the Axis. If they evacuated the town, the Germans would know their code was broken. Allegedly, Churchill kept quiet, the city was bombed with thousands of casualties. The end justified the means in his mind.
• crazyjoe

  •

  9 years ago

  Kill that fucker
• lopaw

  •

  9 years ago

  Fuck that that "women are more emotional and empathetic" shit. I'd kill a young or old Hitler in a heartbeat without a moments hesitation. I'd also do whatever needed to be done for the greater good, even if it meant killing a baby. We all roll differently. You do what you gotta do.
• Dougster

  •

  9 years ago

  Heck, I'd have no qualms about killing a group of 999 innocents and Hitler if the alternative was to let Hitler go and start WWII.
  
  @gawker: that was Coventry
  
• sharkhunter

  •

  9 years ago

  I'd just leave everything alone instead of creating one more alternate universe or timeline.
  A more reasonable version of Hitler may have been more rational. A more reasonble guy might have won Ww2 and split the winnings between nazi Germany and Japan. The US might have even been nuked without certain defectors and then some of us might not have even been born. Strip clubs might not have existed like they are today. There might be no Internet either.
• sharkhunter

  •

  9 years ago

  Then after the reasonable guy dies, some deranged person might take over and quietly kill off other groups that could be opposed. You don't even have to kill off groups like Hitler did. I saw a sci fi show where humans were killed off over 50 years by human looking aliens making our race Infertile so that no one had kids. That's a slow death to a massive group. Aliens get the planet to themselves.
• PhantomGeek

  •

  9 years ago

  GMD, those are definite possibilities. It makes me wonder what sort of influence Hitler might've had on the rise of the Soviet Union. If he didn't militarize Germany, what would Russia have done? Would the Soviet Union still have grown, but swept westward through Europe with little, if any, resistance?
  
  And what would've happened if Hitler entered American politics? Sure, he couldn't become president, but just what could he have done if he rose in our political system?
  
  Great. These what if's are making me want to pick up some alternate history books and maybe even watch "The Boys from Brazil" again.
• Dougster

  •

  9 years ago

  PG: " Would the Soviet Union still have grown, but swept westward through Europe with little, if any, resistance?"
  
  Russia was weak after the purges. Just look how much trouble taking Finland was for them. Bolshevism was always considered the bigger threat than Nazism so you can beat your ass there would have been resistance and from the U.S. earlier on. Probably they would go all the way to allowing Germany to re-arm to prevent Bolshevists from taking the continent.
  
  It really was WWII which forced Russia to get its military ass in shape (the U.S. too).
  
  My guess is that t would have been 50-50 if Stalin would have made a move against the West. At best he might take out Poland and the Baltics but unlikely to have any real luck against the west.
  
  Invention of the bomb might have been delayed by as much as 10-15y.
  
  I think it's important to consider all the contribution in fields like science that were caused by the slaughter in the war (especially considering how jews were a particular target). How many years did that hold back natural progress?