The butterfly effects would add up and and any zygote formed would not be the hitler-as-we-know anymore, since it would be a different combination of sperm and eggs.

Who needs guns when you got a time machine? Don’t like your highschool bully, just bump into their parents back in time. Or you know, “bump” ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) into their parents.

  • rumba@lemmy.zipEnglish
    0·
    15 days ago

    Butterfly effect is as likely to make him more dangerous as it is to make him less

  • starman2112@sh.itjust.works
    0·
    14 days ago

    The real criticism of this plan is that whether you assassinate Hitler or just prevent his birth, it doesn’t solve the societal problems that led to the world wars. Hitler wouldn’t have happened, but the Germans would still feel snubbed by the outcome of the Great War

  • Freshparsnip@lemm.eeEnglish
    0·
    14 days ago

    I don’t believe it would prevent the holocaust though. If it wasn’t him, it would have been someone else.

    Just like now, if it wasn’t Trump, the Heritage Foundation would have found another fuck to carry out their bidding. Fascism is a systemic issue.

      • MBech@feddit.dk
        0·
        14 days ago

        Then there’s a LOT of Hitlers in the making from absent fathers, children of lesbians etc. If missing a fatherly figure is what makes a person a nazi.

  • Bizzle@lemmy.worldEnglish
    0·
    15 days ago

    I read a short story… I don’t remember the name of it… Anyway the guy goes back in time and kills Hitler, only to discover upon his return that everything was worse. So he went back and stopped himself.

    • A1kmm@lemmy.amxl.comEnglish
      0·
      15 days ago

      Possibly “Making History” by Stephen Fry - although at 380 pages it doesn’t quite match as a short story, and the protagonist doesn’t stop himself so much as do something else to reverse the effects of his actions to save Hitler.

      • hungryphrog@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        0·
        15 days ago

        Ehh, people are capable of doing pretty nasty shit regardless of sex or gender. But on the other hand, had Hitler not been a cis man, it’d have been a lot harder to get in a position of power that’d enable hitler to do what he did. So I see your point.

  • Maple Engineer@lemmy.world
    0·
    15 days ago

    That’s not how time works. If you go back in time and kill Hitler Hitler already happened in your timeline so he’s going to happen again. You can’t change things that already happened in your past.

    • iglou@programming.dev
      0·
      15 days ago

      It’s not like we actually know how time travel would work. Because, you know, it’s not currently a thing at all.

      • Maple Engineer@lemmy.world
        0·
        14 days ago

        I think that it’s fairly settled accepted theory that if you perceived it it happened. If you went back to the past and caused it not to happen then it wouldn’t have happened and you wouldn’t have perceived it. Basically, you can’t change what already happened because whatever you did in the past had already happened when you perceived and therefore nothing that you did changed anything.

            • P00ptart@lemmy.world
              0·
              14 days ago

              I feel like just accepting that as the answer is a philosophically lazy answer that simply doesn’t pass the logic test because I didn’t have a time machine. Now I do. Things change. And even if it doesn’t change for us, it changes the course of time for them. Can you imagine the leap in tech if a modern flagship phone was found in the 70s? You wouldn’t be able to go so far back that they’re incapable of interpreting the tech, like what would a hunter/gatherer glean from a phone? Nothing. But in the 40s? Certainly we could have learned a lot from it by then.

              You can’t just wave off something that’s pure speculation as if you know anything about it. This is as close to some weird time theology I can think of. Like the “gods plan” of time.

              • Maple Engineer@lemmy.world
                0·
                14 days ago

                I disagree. If you made a change in 2000 you had already made it when whatever happened in 2025 happened. If you went back and killed Hitler in 1885 that had already happened in 1933 when Hitler was appointed Chancellor. What happened in 1885 didn’t change what happened in 1933. Maybe you killed the wrong person. Maybe history got wrong who Hitler was. Maybe Hitler assumed the identity of the dead infant and went on to be appointed Chancellor. The point is that whatever happened in 1935 happened after whatever happened in 1885.

                Edit: It’s called an ontological paradox.

            • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
              0·
              14 days ago

              Many worlds theory gives us an alternative - in one world I left my phone in 1929 and that shaped that world tremendously.

              But that didn’t happen in my world and it can’t, because my world is the world where no one left their phone in 1929.

              • Maple Engineer@lemmy.world
                0·
                14 days ago

                Yes. There are many paths forward from any moment in time but only one path backwards. That means that to get to where you are right now whatever happened in the past has already happened and can’t be changed.

        • iglou@programming.dev
          0·
          14 days ago

          Not at all. There is many ways to rationalize time, nothing is settled at all. The “settled theory” you talk about would create paradoxes, if time travel is ever made real. And paradoxes don’t work well with reality.

          There is actually a fairly common way to rationalize time that is the opposite of what you’re describing: Time is entirely a construct, there is no past, no future, only the present. Take away all of humanity’s memories and the past doesn’t exist at all.

          There’s also an understanding of time that says it only goes forward, making time travelling to the past impossible.

          • Maple Engineer@lemmy.world
            0·
            14 days ago

            If you don’t like something that happened to you today and go back to 2000 to change something that change that you made in 2000 had already occurred in 2000 when the thing that you didn’t like happened in 2025. What happened in 2025 happened after the change you made in 2000.

    • starman2112@sh.itjust.works
      0·
      14 days ago

      Time is a one-way linear progression, you can’t go back in the first place. Any fictional story where time travel happens necessarily has its own rules, and every one is equally valid

    • BeardedGingerWonder@feddit.ukEnglish
      0·
      15 days ago

      Oh man, this happened with my wife too, just bumped into her and next thing you know she’s pregnant. I can’t believe how fertile I am sometimes.

    • Lemming6969@lemmy.world
      0·
      14 days ago

      This is the correct answer in any single chain deterministic universe… It always happened just like that.

  • Siegfried@lemmy.world
    0·
    15 days ago

    We have our own hitlers living now. I think we should care about them first before thinking on time traveling

  • philpo@feddit.org
    0·
    15 days ago

    Dude, don’t you think we tried that? The first time we got Schickelcutlerstalin for some reason who killed everyone with his out off-control biological weapons. Then for some fucking reason we got a fucking snake hitler!

    And now we are all out of time-travel juice and locked down in a reality where hitler lived AND an orange is also hitler. Well, I had a little bit left,but a giant testicle came along, kicked me in my testicles,shouted “you want fucking Mother Theresa torturing everyone to death” and disappeared.

    Now I am stuck here. Fuck.

    • starman2112@sh.itjust.works
      0·
      14 days ago

      I’m really curious how you managed to read the post that badly. Like, what combination of words do you have to misinterpret to get to that conclusion?

      Edit: oh my god this guy moderates so many communities

      This platform is cooked if this is who’s modding it

  • originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com
    0·
    15 days ago

    on a side note…

    Important Note: In order to marry, Alois and Klara had to obtain a dispensation from the Church due to their close familial ties. This highlights the fact that they were indeed related and their marriage was considered unusual for the time.