5 Answers

  1. No one: this issue is not legally settled. But murder is prohibited under any legal system, both modern and the first half of the 20th century.

    In any case, at the time of the murder-it is suggested to kill in advance, right? “there's nothing to kill young Hitler for yet. You can-theoretically-try to push it along the norm of “extreme necessity”: they say, but a much larger number of people will be saved. But that in itself doesn't follow from anywhere. Hitler directed the events, but he did not provoke them. The Second World War was caused by systemic problems of the Versailles system of world order, and not at all by Hitler personally. So, in fact, it is proposed to exchange the murder of figs for who knows what. Perhaps the situation will only get worse.

    In general, no: this way-even if you somehow get rid of the paradox of the murdered grandfather and manage to prove exactly that it's all about the activities of one person – the issues will not be resolved. The same Hitler, most likely, will simply be helped to enter the art Academy, and along the way will introduce you to some pretty girl of Jewish origin…

    The problem can be solved more gracefully.

  2. no one has such rights. everything happened as it happened and there is no guarantee. which would OTHERWISE be the best option. if everything goes as it goes, probably someone needs it and all this leads to something concrete? I wonder what's at the end..

  3. You made it sound like it just happened. and in your opinion, this is some kind of lawlessness and arbitrariness). Of course, from a legal point of view, it is impossible to find out who has the right to do this, since this action itself is now a priori impossible. If a time machine is ever created, then surely a commission of the most learned people will be created, who will have a sanction from the world community to grant this or that person the right to change history in one way or another, do you agree?

    It seems to me that such a scenario would be the best. I don't know what these scientists would have thought about Hitler, but I think that if they had made any major changes in human history, they would have eliminated the Third Reich first. And they would probably have come up with a better option than just drenching him. But not because of the legal side of the issue, but for pragmatic reasons of accuracy.�

    In short, the problem here is only in the very possibility of changing time, but humanity here has no experience from which to build a legal precedent, and nothing is clear at all. Therefore, today this problem is unsolvable. However, let's remember that time is just another dimension. If you had the opportunity to kill Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi, would you take it right now? I would use it, and without hesitation. And no one would blame me. Everyone would thank me.

  4. The entire Jewish people, any Slav (Bulgarian, Croat, Czech, Russian, Ukrainian, Belarusian, Pole, etc.), any native Petersburger

  5. Let's be clear, do you mean to kill Hitler before he created the national party in Germany, or after. If after that, it is not certain that he deserves to be punished, but if you are talking about preventing events, then everything is somewhat more complicated. After all, there is a concept of presumption of innocence, a person cannot be convicted for actions that he has not yet committed. It is possible to speak not about a moral right, but rather about the need to sacrifice a person for the sake of saving many people, but this is also not a completely unambiguous question. And most importantly, I don't think we need such drastic measures. After all, you are already in the past, so change it. People somehow believe that the existence of Hitler in the past will automatically lead to the power of the Nazis and the Second World War, but this is not so. Or according to you, Hitler was destined to become a dictator and a mass murderer. But if this is so, if fate really exists, then there is no way you can threaten him, providence itself will not give you. If we assume that fate does not exist, but there is a sequence of events, then the future can be changed. In the most extreme case, you can simply come to him and say: “so they say and so, my friend, I'm from the future (to confirm, you can name a couple of facts from his immediate future) and if you go into politics, then you are completely fucked (for persuasiveness, you can even embellish so that he is afraid, and it's better to keep silent about what power he can get).”

Leave a Reply