#BabyHitler Is a Thing That Actually Happened Because Twitter Is Drunk and Needs to Go Home

No chill.

Not Available Lead
Complex Original

Image via Complex Original

Not Available Lead

Adolf Hitler is not funny. Baby Hitler is still not very funny, but is slightly less "not funny" than the adult version. Pondering whether or not you would kill baby Hitler if given the time-traveling chance? @NYTMag had Twitter tripping over itself to deliver the best response to their "Would you kill Baby Hitler?" poll, with the results ranging quite predictably from pretty disappointing to acutely disturbing. Like anything worth your time on Twitter, it all started with confusion:

Why the fuck is #BabyHitler trending 😂🙈

— Kenny (@kenneth_lachlan) October 23, 2015

As always, we then have our straight-to-the-point, no-nonsense approach:

Just going to say as an avowed history buff with an emphasis on WWII-era and Stalinist regimes, #BabyHitler is fascinating to me.

— Matt Bagley (@BagleySports) October 23, 2015

There are two kinds of people on this earth: those would kill baby Hitler and those who wouldn't. #BabyHitler

— The real chris beck (@SubBeck) October 23, 2015

1. I would absolutely go back in time and kill Hitler
2. Unfortunately, killing baby Hitler alone would not have stopped the rise of fascism

— Ben Norton (@BenjaminNorton) October 23, 2015

#babyHitler, wow, that's just great interactive content right there

— Charles Boehm (@cboehm) October 23, 2015

Contrasting nicely with the bizarrely calm, almost unsettling method:

I'm assuming #BabyHitler isn't an early-trending Christmas toy.

— Ben Greenman (@bengreenman) October 23, 2015


— NYT Magazine (@NYTmag) October 23, 2015

Or, as only the year 2015 could deliver, the wonderfully nonsensical and/or patently deranged:

Just as suddenly as it arrived, #BabyHitler vanished into the mysterious heavens of inane digital ramblings of yesteryear, only to (probably) eventually be revived and ruined by Ryan Seacrest.

Latest in Pop Culture