Official Site of Speaker, Historian and Author Sean Munger

Anomalous, Spotlight

Nursery crimes: The cruel idiocy of the “Baby Hitler” scenario.

The U.S. Presidential election of 2016 is already shaping up to be one of the strangest in modern history, and not just because a New York real estate mogul with bad hair and no political experience is at the top of the Republican primary field. In the circus-like atmosphere surrounding the race, not long ago what has to be one of the dumbest questions ever posed to a Presidential candidate went to former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, whose brother George W. and father George H.W. once inhabited the office he now seeks. The question, posed by Huffington Post, was: “If you had the chance to go back in time and kill Adolf Hitler as a baby to prevent the Holocaust, would you?” Jeb Bush replied, “Hell yeah, I would! You gotta step up, man.” The “Baby Hitler” scenario is not new: it rears its infantile head often when people start discussing time travel scenarios. Governor Bush’s response to it was probably intended as a light-hearted joke, perhaps to give his failing candidacy and air of geeky humor. Whether it worked to that end I won’t offer an opinion. As a matter of history and logic, though–to the extent logic can be applied to a concept like time travel–the “Baby Hitler” scenario is utterly ridiculous. It’s worth examining, though, if only to unmask the profound misinterpretations of how history works that lie behind it.

In real life, Adolf Hitler was born on April 20, 1889 in Branau Am Inn, Austria, to Alois Hitler (formerly Alois Schickelgruber) and Klara Pölzl, a lower middle-class couple. The way the “Baby Hitler” time travel scenario is supposed to work is that a time traveler could go back in time, from say today, 2015, to Branau Am Inn during Adolf’s infancy and kill him, thus preventing him from growing up and becoming the leader of Germany. Supposedly this means there would be no Nazi Party, no World War II, and the six million Jews and others who perished in the Holocaust would have lived out their natural lives. Sounds great, doesn’t it? The moral question presented is very simplistic. Would you kill one innocent baby who’d done nothing wrong (yet) to save six million, or if you count all the dead of World War II as victims, 80 to 100 million people? Governor Bush eagerly wants you to know that he would take that bargain.

hitler rally

Hitler’s rise to power was an extremely complicated historical process. While he’s obviously the key figure, the Nazi movement and its ideology were larger than just him.

There are two problems with the scenario, though, and that’s before we even get to the moral question. The first is that, from a standpoint of logic, killing Hitler would “change history” for only one person–the actual assassin of Baby Hitler–and nothing would be different for anyone else. Let’s presume that the Republican Party in 2015 builds a time machine (maybe they can borrow Doc Brown’s DeLorean) and actually does send Jeb Bush back to 1889 to snuff wee Adolf. From the standpoint of all of us who didn’t go on the trip, Bush would simply vanish in the DeLorean, never come back, and nothing would change for us. We’d all still be stuck in our real world where Hitler lived and the Holocaust happened. If Bush, having killed Hitler in 1889, then travels “back to the future” of 2015, he would materialize in a world different than the one he left, but he would be the only one who would know the difference. Under this theory Bush would not be “changing history” but instead traveling from one universe to another. The two universes would be identical in every respect up until that day in 1889 when a mysterious stranger from Florida killed a baby named Adolf Hitler, but it’s difficult to see what Bush would have accomplished for the people who sent him on this mission, who would never enjoy the benefit of it (unless getting Jeb Bush out of our universe can be considered a benefit).

Incidentally, this is why the plot of The Terminator, and any other time-travel story that involves “changing history in the past,” is logically flawed. I lampooned this plot cliché in my 2009 novel Giamotti in Winter, which uses the “Baby Hitler” scenario in a tongue-in-cheek manner, except that it’s Baby Napoleon instead of Baby Hitler. In the novel, Giamotti hoodwinks an entire international consortium to build him a time machine to send him back to prevent a destructive war, but, knowing they’ll never see any benefit from it and thus he is not accountable to them, he diverts the machine back to Corsica in 1769 and murders Baby Napoleon to force a jump between universes in order to escape a “prison universe” in which Giamotti has been entombed.

luther before the diet of worms

Anti-Semitism had a deep tradition in Germany long before Hitler. Martin Luther, seen here arguing before the Diet of Worms, was an extremely influential anti-Semite of the 16th century.

The second problem is that the “Baby Hitler” scenario ignores broader forces of history and reduces it to an essentially random grab-bag of outcomes which are entirely dependent on individual personalities. Hitler did bear the legal and moral responsibility for the Holocaust. However, he neither invented German anti-Semitism nor laid the conditions in which Nazism rose and flourished in Germany. The roots of European anti-Semitism go back centuries, even before Martin Luther; so too do the basic conditions that forged Germany as an imperial power in the late 19th century, which led to World War I, which led to its defeat, which led to the rise of fascism and ultimately World War II. All of those broader historical processes and conditions would have existed without Hitler, and if he wasn’t around, some other demagogue may have arisen to bring the situation to a head, perhaps sooner, perhaps later. Given the frequency with which mass killings by governments and oppressive regimes occur–there’s one going on right now in Syria, for instance–it’s unrealistic to think that something like the Holocaust could positively never have happened without Hitler. It may well have, or it might have happened in the 1950s instead of the 1940s, or it might have happened in France (which was also heavily anti-Semitic) instead of Germany. Who can say?

The moral or philosophical questions surrounding the Baby Hitler scenario are even more impenetrable, far from the simplistic “one life vs. six million lives” balance that the scenario wants you to think it’s about. Hitler was an evil man, but was he born evil? Was he utterly irredeemable the moment he came out of the womb, and the Holocaust was as good as done the moment he drew his first breath? I have a hard time believing so, but the Baby Hitler scenario presumes it. Suppose, instead of killing a defenseless baby–an act any moral person would view as abhorrent–Jeb Bush found the nicest, most moral, upstanding and gentle childless couple in Austria in 1889, and he kidnapped baby Adolf and left him in a basket on their doorstep. He might have grown up to be a saint, perhaps a doctor who invented a vaccine or a medical procedure that saved millions of lives. Is Jeb Bush’s prerogative to judge a person’s worth? Is it anybody but God’s? (Incidentally, a similar moral question appears in the 1976 Ira Levin novel The Boys From Brazil, which deals with a science fiction plot not to kill Hitler, but to clone him. “Would you kill a clone of Hitler?” poses many of the same issues as the Baby Hitler scenario).

The Boys From Brazil, a somewhat satirical novel about neo-Nazis, toys with a scenario similar to Baby Hitler. It was made into a popular movie in 1978 starring Gregory Peck.

Fortunately we’re talking about a completely hypothetical science fiction situation, which is probably why Governor Bush relished the chance to discuss it–it’s politically much safer for him, I suppose, than talking about what policy he might pursue in Iraq or what he’s going to do about climate change. It’s at least worth thinking about for the logical, historical and moral issues it raises. Would I kill Baby Hitler given the chance? (Remember, I’m Jewish). The best answer I can give is, I don’t know, and I wouldn’t relish having to decide.

All images in this article are in the public domain. The baby in the header image really is Adolf Hitler, age 1. I am not the uploader of the YouTube clip.


  1. johnrmoffitt

    I liked the article and totally agree that Hitler only took advantage of fear-ignorance-racism of the time. With no Hitler, it would only be somebody else stepping in. Future impossible to predict after that. And Jeb Bush … I think he was so tired of being called a wimp that he stepped in with his seemingly macho but actually completely idiotic answer.

    • Jeb Bush is really sort of a pathetic figure. His campaign is so limp and lifeless that he probably feels that saying crap like this can only help him because he can’t possibly be doing any worse. He himself will be an interesting historical study in a few years when he’s forgotten, obscure and definitely not President of the United States.

  2. a guy from alvarado

    Say Bush went back in time. Would he have pants? would they go back in time with him? or would he be naked? what if in those pants is a paper, and on it is a photo of bush holding up a poster. and on that poster is the words “i am going back in time to kill hitler”…. also in the photo is a holocaust victim next to bush, someone who survived a camp.

    Lets say bush goes back to 1920 and kills hitler when hitler is 30, before he has the chance to run germany. Bush then goes to the united states in 1920 and finds a person , becomes friends, and asks them to hold an envelope for him with the picture in it he had in his pocket. The envelop is sealed. Its stored at 704 houser street in queens ny in the cellar of the house (i dont know i had to think of something, meat head)……

    Bush then returns to today in the time travel, this yr. he goes to 704 houser street, the owner is now very very old, but the house is still there. He goes into the cellar and opens the envelope. What’s in it?

  3. a guy from alvarado

    also the holocaust victim was still alive when bush first left for 1920, if the photo is there, do they recognize themselves if shown the photo during 2015?

  4. a guy from alvarado

    no. im giving you a detailed scenario, i want to know what the outcome is

  5. a guy from alvarado

    i’m not going to get an answer am i?

  6. a guy from alvarado

    i’ll tell you what i think would happen… when the envelope was opened it would be the identical photo he took to 1920 with him. If shown to the holocaust survivor, he would no longer be a holocaust survivor but the photo would show effects of him as if he did survive the holocaust — any scars or tattoos on his arm would be there, but he wouldnt have those scars or tattoos in 2015. He would be looking at a different version of himself.

    I think that would be what would happen.

    • Presumably yes, as a photo is a physical object which would not be altered by changed historical circumstances. But again, only Bush himself would notice any difference.

  7. a guy from alvarado

    why? say the holocaust survivor is “david”, when david looks at the photo IN MODERN TIMES, he will have a tattoo on him in THAT PIC, but when he looks at his own arm in 2015 its no longer there , right? thats a difference which would be noticeable, yes?

  8. a guy from alvarado

    this is fascinating to me

  9. a guy from alvarado

    I think this is your most complex thought provoking blog Munger.

  10. eli

    if you want to stop the holocaust a better way to do so would be stop the 1919 treaty of versailles. it would be way more ethical instead of killing baby &%*#$@ and since the people of germany would not have become humiliated and disenchanted it might also have reduced the appeal of facism/nazism. the nazi movement possibly would not have risen to power or/and minorities including jews possibly would not have been so baldy persecuted.

  11. eli

    you could not stop the nazi movement–and in essence, the holocaust, just by killing %^&*#$; you would have to stop the movement itself. but this is a thought-provoking entry on your blog, and your reasoning a good answer why people don’t talk about this stuff more often.

Leave a Reply

Theme by Anders Norén