Maybe you all saw the latest firestorm of the Twitterverse. If not, here's a quick summary, but it's basically exactly what it sounds like: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2015/10/23/twitter-responds-nytmag-question-killing-baby-hitler/74474142/ Anyway--I would not kill baby Hitler, personally. If it were grown up Hitler in 1933 or '36 or '41, maybe, but not baby Hitler back in 1898 or whatever. It just seems like, if you're going back that early in his life, there are plenty of other ways to avoid him doing the Holocaust without having to kill him? I mean, kidnap him and raise him to be a Buddhist, or something, but baby Hitler hasn't (yet) done anything wrong and it just seems like the only way you could justify killing him is based on projecting our own assumptions from 2015 (that the Holocaust is inevitable, etc.). This is all assuming, as well, that the Holocaust/WWII needed Hitler in order to happen, and that if you take him out of the equation someone else won't take his place as an anti-Semitic right-wing dictator of Germany. So yeah, pretty thin justification for infanticide, IMO.