If your killing Hitler to change the past then you are killing Hitler to change the present which causes all kinds of problems. The question needs better forming.

A question that came to me while I was thinking about OP is would you kill yourself today if it meant a million more people would have been born and live in the world presently- not having averting their death, but your death somehow giving them existence to start with. My gut says no I would not but I am thinking that seems kind of immoral to deny existence to a million people just so I can live.

Lol Bushaments



Amirite?

The name is a dead give-a-way, if you ask me.

If you could abort hitler,

couldn't you also transport him to the future and raise him yourself?

100% baby hitler doesn't end up enslaving a nation of people if im his dad.

Child kidnappers are the worst.

Yeah, well, what if one day you saw him in grade school standing atop the playground, making hand gestures and rousing up the other little kids? Do you take him out?

I am pretty sure that the fine folk at your local abortion clinic don't have time traveling capacity.

I bet there are other people who are worse.

Like, for instance, child kidnappers who also, and oddly specifically, steal hubcaps off of 1984 Crown Victorias have more worserness.

I could never do that. We would lose out on so much YouTube comedy! Like this music video.

I would go back to when he was a child. I'd give him a beautiful picture frame with a note that reads "Start using the 262's en masse right away. Same with the StG44. And don't build any battleships, they get sunk anyway without even accomplishing much. Instead build 800 more subs. Destroy those ***** red bastards. The fate of the world rests in your hands. Oh, and P.S. Don't declare war on America, even though they give a lot of help to the red devil."

I'd tell him to keep this dear, one day he'll understand it all and it will come in very helpful.

And then I'd transport back even further in time and strangle the baby Marx with my two bare hands!

Well, that's because you're a Nazi, but he couldn't have 'used the 262s en masse right away' because he didn't have 262s en masse to use, because of problems in producing the engines because German industry was no good at making high-temperature alloys. And even when the engines were delivered they only had a 12-hour life, much of which was used up on the test and delivery flights.

And the 262 was a turkey anyway. It saw service in similar numbers over a similar period to the British Spitfire XIV (of which Adolf Galland wrote, 'The best thing about the Spitfire XIV was that there were so few of them'). The 262's kill-to-loss ratio in air combat was 0.5 to 1. The Spitfire XIV's was 20 to 1. A number of Spitfire XIV pilots shot down 262s, but no 262 pilot ever shot down a Spitfire XIV.

And the MP44 Sturmgewehr only accentuated the psychological weakness of German troops, always relying on prophylactic automatic fire the keep the enemy at a distance and avoid close combat. Against troops who actually liked close combat, as the British did, the Germans were hopeless.

Plus, of course, a number of Spitfire XIV pilots shot down 262s, but no 262 pilot, not even Galland, ever shot down a Spitfire XIV.

Thanks, uh, I'll change my note to boy Hitler.

Is it possible that the majority of destroyed 262's were destroyed while on the ground?

Your pop psychology assessment is rubbish. The Allies decided upon a reckless war of attrition, knowing this would lead to many more of their men killed, but knowing that they could easily restock men and armour and knowing that the Germans couldn't. So they were instructed to run up on and crowd the Germans like some mass zombie army. I'm sure they were overjoyed.

The Germans were smart to fight an intelligent tactical war, where their Panther and Tiger tanks could destroy any ally tank from long range (upwards of 3 km's) but not vice versa. That's why the Panther enjoyed a nice kill rate of 9-1 against the "formidable" T-34, who's best strategy was to charge German tanks and fire from point blank, and if that didn't work, ram em.

I watched a documentary about the Islands battles in the pacific and for each battle the casualties would be something like 952 Japanese killed vs only 37 Americans. It's because the Japanese fought like mental ******s. They thought if they were the bravest, screamed bloody murder and made ugly faces while charging into battle that the US troops would drop their weapons and run. Is that how you think wars should be fought against machine gun fire???

P.S. I'm well aware of the shortcomings of the 262.

P.P.S. I'm not a Nazi. I just like to play devils advocate.

since im not anti-semitic, i'd let him live.

There is a scene in Man in the High Castle at the end, where you hope Hitler is not killed in 1963 (or a least not certain), due to greater good.

Here is a crazy scene from the movie. Already watched the series twice.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFM2xZ7dytk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wzyZYcJ03_4

This guy must be a 2 + 2er

WOULD YOU KILL BABY HITLER?

PewDiePie

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BgTvENNproM