How would YOU catch the Ripper?

[Mayerling]

Hi Jeff

The Anschluss would have stood, as this happened before Hitler's death in your scenario.

Hi Robert,

I got my dates wrong - I thought it was in March 1939, but you are right it was in 1938.

Jeff.

[Mr Lucky]

Technically, time is a type of glue that simply prevents everything happening at once.

[sleekviper]

Technically can not go back in time, only forward. The matter that would be taken back, already exists in some form, and causes a problem since matter can not occupy the same space multiple times. Even if matter could be created, it would still have to pass through the creation and building phase before reaching the precreation point to go in the past, which can not happen. Something that is a billion light years away, is not a billion light years to the traveler, just the stationary body that the traveler sets off from. He can get there, and return, but by the time the original stationary body is reached, it has been a billion years to those he left. Every point in time that he used to reach the destination is off limits, so time becomes a one way trip, forward. Basically, someone somehow makes every step backward somehow, steps out a machine to find no killer, just a body; his matter has replaced the matter of the killer, and now he is running from a cart after landing next to Stride. Both forms of matter would not exactly match up of course, but for the sake of the point, something extremely bad probably happens when trying to share the same matter in the same space and time.

[GUT]

G'day Robert

Once she's been told, nothing will make her forget. You could use a time machine to prevent her birth - she'd still remember.

That's why I begged Jeff not to say a word.

[Robert]

Once she's been told, nothing will make her forget. You could use a time machine to prevent her birth - she'd still remember.

[GUT]

G'day Jeff

She is right.

Please, please, please show mercy and don't tell her!

[Robert]

Hi Jeff

The Anschluss would have stood, as this happened before Hitler's death in your scenario.

[GUT]

G'day Jeff

I had a similar discussion revolving around:

If you could stop the attack on Pearl Harbor, would you?

It actually became very passionate because it involved some Americans, some Brits, some Aussies and some Jews, some of them took the views you might expect some surprised me a little.

However maybe we could just keep nipping back and forth knocking off all the bad ones as they become apparent.

[Mayerling]

G'day All

Talking to the bride about this last night and she said:

"And what if one of the people you save is worse than the one you kill"

Danm spoil sport.

But of course I could always jump back in the way back machine, or even the Delorean.

Hi GUT,

She is right. There is no guarrantee that altering the course of history would be for the better. In fact, as someone earlier pointed out when I suggested killing Hitler's parents before he is born, you can hurt basically innocent people playing with lives in such a situation as we are considering.

I once mulled over what history would seem like had an event occurred that did not. Not changing history but some unexpected twist. Hitler again was the subject, but the concept is unsettling. In the fall and winter of 1938, in the wake of the Munich conferences, Hitler had basically demonstrated he could confront his foreign opponents and win (in this case the Sudetenland). It was a remarkable piece of fortune for him.

Suppose after the conference, in December 1938, Hitler and most of his highest ranking associates (Goebbels, Goering, Von Ribbentrop, Himmler, Heydrich, Hess, Bormann) were headed for some meeting by air, and the plane crashed killing all on board. Think of the repercussions in terms of history.

No doubt anti-Semitism would still have flourished in Germany and allied states, but probably there would not have been any Holacaust (especially as the main architect of that was Heydrich at the 1942 Wannsee Conference, and he is killed with Hitler in this incident. A second tier of Nazi figures would have moved up, who more than likely would have consolidated the gains that Hitler's foreign policy brinkmanship made from 1936 to 1938. The Germans would have mourned their "astounding" Fuhrer for his great successes in restoring German strength and power. His historical position would have been similar to Bismarck and Frederick the Great in terms of achievement. Indeed (frightening as this might sound to all of us) German historians would have lamented his death removing such a magnificent leader before he had finished his work (figuring it would have been settling the Polish Corridor, but ignoring his "anschluss" with Austria, or his grabbing the rest of Czechoslavakia - as they were not apparently on the table at all).

Similarly, as it would have lessened the chance of World War II,

1) Mussolini would not have tied himself to the Nazis, and more than llikely would have retained power in Italy until he died - a natural death most likely.

2) The alliance with Japan might or might not have happened, and if Japan kept on being beligerent towards the west it would have faced the brunt of their power alone.

3) FDR probably would not have felt the need to run for a third term - he only felt it necessary in the face of the Nazi threat. If John Nance Garner had been the Democratic choice in 1940, he might have been beaten by the Republicans under either Robert Taft or Thomas Dewey.

4) Due to the disappearance of further German beligerance, Nevil Chamberlain would have retained that huge popularity he had gotten when he came back announcing "peace in our time". Chamberlain wanted to reform the British education systerm. He probably would have, and his historical reputation would have been higher.

5) Winston Churchill would have been an interesting member of Parliament up through the 1950s, but never Prime Minister.

All of this is really to conceive. Granted that it is "iffy" history, but it is based on the same type of premise as the time travel situation. But can you imagine Hitler lauded as a truly great statesman?

Jeff

[GUT]

G'day All

Talking to the bride about this last night and she said:

"And what if one of the people you save is worse than the one you kill"

Danm spoil sport.

But of course I could always jump back in the way back machine, or even the Delorean.

[Robert]

Hi Jeff

And it would be interesting to observe him in one of his 'trances.'

[pinkmoon]

If I wasn't such a coward and I was going after our killer I might use this as an excuse to dress up in a little black number you know something quite short and revealing that leaves nothing to the imagination or maybe a little French maids outfit and use myself as bait.

[Mayerling]

Hi Lynn

I'd love to go back and talk to Socrates. But I've a feeling that he would be the one asking the questions.

Hi Robert,

That would be of interest (provided you understood Greek - ancient Greek). I'd be curious if Plato or Xenophon would be the closest of his student friends. Also I might see what Xanthippe was all about.

Jeff

[Mayerling]

G'day Jeff



Another reason we don't have way back machines, no one would believe us anyway.

Oh and Yea Gilligan, he could do it.

Hi GUT,

Gilligan would have done it, but only because in his bumbling to not effect history, he would have. Possibly for the worst (i.e. the Titanic makes the maiden voyage successfully, and has it's total capacity of over 3,000 people on board when it hits an iceberg in a major storm on a later voyage, causing more deaths)

Jeff

[bolo]

Boris, I thought that Hitler was a frustrated architect rather than "artist" (as in 'painter'). That was why he liked Speer.

Yes, hence the focus on painting views of buildings, but he still tried to get into the academy and become famous as an artist. He rated himself as a misunderstood artist throughout most of his life. His faible for architecture (especially Speer's architecture) in his later life was some sort of compensation for that.

Boris