Actress Ellen Page: I’m A Transgender Man Named Elliot

Excellent point.

1) History, law, and even morality are as dependent on their mistakes as they are on their shiny bright moments. Reforms and wise changes more often rise out of massive mistakes and near misses. Sometimes it takes doubling down on a mistake for the reform to stick. After WWI, many foreign policy thinkers came to believe taking any land by war was wrong. They were ignored by the Big 3 (France, Italy, & UK). After WWII, everyone pretty much agreed, no more conquest.

2) If you actually had the ability to time travel, killing is the least imaginative way of solving a problem. For example, what if a wealthy Jewish friend of the Hitler family paid for Adolf to go to art school? There is another wrinkle in the morality of killing with time travel. Basic rule in physics and sociology, by observing an event, you change it. The change more often is small, but if somethings on a knife's edge, it can be the decider. If you tell someone they are going to commit a terrible crime, they might not do it. A lot of people who collaborated with the Nazis would never had done the extreme things they did at the start. A warming would have either slowed them down or made them reverse course.

3) If we ever did charge people with crimes they would/might commit, we would have to take into consideration that the crime hadn't happen. Some might argue that murder would be reduced to attempted murder. I would go further myself, but I'm a Blackstone Principle extremist. I can't in any circumstance justify 5 years for anyone using Pre-Crime evidence. Maybe they would have to actually commit one real crime before being able to be arrested. Example: I'm going to high and have a bad reaction, and kill a bunch of people. So I get arrested after I buy the drugs.
 

In thesame vein, I found this on the old board:

This was from a discussion about if Isreal had been founded 10 years earlier.

Karl Aksel:


If Hitler had said that to anyone other than an Arab leader, then it might have meant something. Hitler had a tendency to tell people what they wanted to hear. You'd almost think he was a politician, or something. As it was, the Jews in the Middle East were something to deal with when that time came. The first order of business was to help Mussolini save face. There was nothing to suggest that the Jews in the Middle East was anything that needed immediate attention - it could wait for however long it took. As such, the war with the Allies was of more pressing concern. The Einsatzgruppe Egypt was about as real as Operation Sealion. Which is to say it was a thing on paper, and some token resources were spent, but they did not exist in any meaningful sense of the word.

An Israel in the region, however, now that would have been another country he could declare war against, and invade with Arab help. Mussolini had attempted to invade Egypt in order to carve out a larger empire for himself, motivated in no small part by Hitler's successes in Europe. Hitler had no interest in Africa until, indeed, Mussolini failed miserably. It stands to reason that a German interest in the area - like eg. the elimination of a Jewish state - would have led Hitler to cast his eyes southwards sooner, and help Mussolini from the get-go. As part of British controlled land, present-day Israel was a patch of land no different from any other British held patch of land. As a sovereign state, however, it would have been worth considering attacking from Lebanon. The area was already controlled by Vichy-France, and perhaps Hitler would have been interested in keeping more than a token force there when the British invaded in 1941. Hell, perhaps Rommel might have been sent to Beirut instead of Tripoli. The distance between Beirut and Jerusalem is considerably smaller than the distance between Tripoli and Tobruk.

WE MEET AT LAST!

I'm not stating a position of mine, I was simply making a contribution to the question with information I was a spectator to.