Arcturus,
That’s the rational, utilitarian approach that most people would take.
It’s a slippery slope, but if his fate was sealed, how could one blame you for choosing to assassinate?
I wonder how baby Hitler would look?
The well learned psychological lesson, which was not really considered well enough back then: take a highly intelligent boy,with a lot of talent, and not give him the space to grow, reject him totally, give him the impression that he is sub-standard, you are asking for trouble, big time. This formula may not be relevant here in the US, because there are a lot of safty nets, dissipating the angst into various pockets of reality, whereas in an idealistic country such as Germany, there were at that time no political options, only a squeeze between several limited courses of political action. Granted, they became extended world wide, which approbates the very nature and strength of the compression of agenda.
Artimas, I don’ believe in destiny in the sense that we are meant to become or to do this - destiny is seen in hindsight to me.
All I meant is that in THIS scenario, we absolutely know what Hitler would do. You mean to say you would not want to destroy him beforehand?
Does that really make me psychopathic? lol I never thought of myself in those terms. But I do see consequences to those things left undone or done.
Let’s say that in this scenario, you’re in baby Hitler’s room, gazing down at him in his crib. You know what he will become. Do you still choose not to kill him? I know it’s difficult to destroy the life of an innocent child. I understand that but you know what he will become. There is no possibility of changing history.
Well, we might choose to wait til he grows up and we see the signs. We might choose to track him, to keep abreast of his comings and goings. Then you might decide to kill him if you can get to him. You might not be able t get to him. Otherwise, he has destroyed all of these lives.
Erik
You mean to strike while the iron’s hot or whimpering in his crib?
There is murder, there is assassination. We don’t do it to innocents but some people do deserve to die to save other lives. Maybe it’s a wrong way for me to think but are we to put the victim’s lives behind the lives of the animals?
Of course, if we could know that he would be/could be stopped beforehand, knowing what he was going to do, and spend the rest of his miserable existence in solitary confinement, I might be able to opt for that.
[/quote]
lol That might just make it a whole lot easier for me.
So no changing or influencing him differently? He is for sure going do what he did before? I am saying killing a baby is psychopathic, people here could be just saying they would and when it’s in front of them they don’t have it in them. Never know. Why not just ship him off somewhere else?
But we’re NOT speaking here of any baby. I wouldn’t kill any baby - any baby…except for this one. But in this scenario where we know Hitler WILL destroy so much human life, who wouldn’t in their rational mind kill this baby? There is no amount of nurturing him that will change him.
Now would you?
How far away would be far enough way? Oh, the moon. Maybe the sun’s reflection would change him but it doesn’t change us so…
Of course, there would be times when we just couldn’t know what we would do. But we would KNOW here what he would do. So…
This question here is more about what we see ourselves as being capable of, how we view things, how we act under certain circumstances, the part that ethics and codes play in terms of consequences and how far we’re willing to go…in other words, put up or shut up.
Would you really allow millions of human beings to die just for this one to live?
I am very sorry but You all are terribly off course. It would be simply of admitting him to art school. You may argue that’s sour grapes, arguing backwards into the realm of probability, the point not seen here, is, at the THAT time people were not foreward
looking, the whole Hitler Baby thing is a retrospection of missed possibilities. I am sorry, but i had to say it.
Sweet Rumi, we’re not talking probability here but certainty. We KNOW his life beforehand.
So you think that art school would change history? lol
Happy New Year, sweetie.
To all those opting not to kill baby Hitler and instead try to raise him and show him better ways or whatever -
1)WHAT would be your excuse for not doing it if he starts the WW2 and conducts the Holocaust and everything happens like it does in our timeline?
2)WHAT would you say to the relatives of all those people whose sons/fathers/brothers/sisters/mothers/daughters have either been murdered on the battlefield or put in a concentration camp, starved and slaughtered?
3)Would you preserve your self-righteous attitude of not killing a baby, even in the face of that?
4)How would you feel about yourself, knowing that you could have stopped it right then and then, but didn’t, allowing millions to die horrifying deaths because of your unwillingness to kill one child who we know has the capability to become quite possibly the most evil person in history.
Let’s hear you 
Ah well I tried.
Yes i get that, Arc, but…there is no certainty forewards or backwards. Now given the notion that extremely and one of a kind type people meet the criteria of unconditional requirements, toward nothing but absolute certainty, then i would agree with You. But this has not been established, as of yet, unless i am mistaken to the references above.
One thing is clear, however, that special people adhere to special handling, on part of society as a whole whole. Hitlrer’s mistake consisted of not seeing the whole picture of societal indebtedness,
apart from Jews.
Happy New year to You also, / as always obe/rumi/orb
Jesus Tap-dancing Christ…Arcturus is a savage! haha
That’s cool, though - I like the wild, ferocious, barbarian chic mode; it suits you well.
My “excuse” would be that he read the wrong history fairy tale.
So am I the only one picturing baby Hitler with the mustache?
Anyway, no I would not.
1.) If the rules of time travel are such that the future can be changed, then it’s entirely possible that Hitler won’t do the things he did, and I’d just be killing a baby for no reason.
2.) If the rules of time travel are such that the future cannot be changed, then the Holocaust will happen regardless and I’d just be killing a baby for no reason.
If we’re using Terminator rules where the future doesn’t change UNLESS a person goes back in time and takes dramatic action, then…well still no. There’s too many other ways Nazism and the Holocaust could have come about without Hitler, and it’s still an innocent baby. I would certainly kill adult, pre-Holocaust Nazi Hitler though.
Adolf Hitler and Mohandas (Mahatma) Karamchand Gandhi were the candidates for the Nobel Peace Prize in 1939. And if the Second World War had not started in 1939, Adolf Hitler would have got the Nobel Peace Prize. 
The Swedish parliamentarian Brandt made the nomination as a joke. A piece of satire in response to Chamberlain’s deal.
He was never serious contender.
Hitler was a tool for others, killing him would just change the name of the leader. His disease probably caused his leash holders to lose some control.
Yes, and therefore he was a serious candidate for the Nobel Peace Prize. This can easily be proven by the historical sources.
Its sad but, I don’t doubt it.