A university in Canada (Wilfrid Laurier University) sponsored a study. The suggestion was....would you have a problem if you were sitting there in the 1920s....knowing the consequences of Hitler's accomplishments....go after him and kill him?
Roughly 6,000 people participated in the questions asked, and eventually.....an odd thing came up in the conclusion.
Men and women think differently. For women, it was much tougher to make an emotional decision on killing Hitler. Men.....less so.
In the world of ethics....there are consequences. You evaluate the consequences....reach a priority system....to accept the next round of consequences. The difference here is that you know the basic facts to consequence number one. You don't know the consequences to the changed act.
If you remove Hitler in 1922 (by simply killing him on the streets of Munich one night)....what do you set up for the next round of events? Without Hitler as the national speaker....the Nationalist Socialists are still a very minor player in 1932, and the weak but operational government continues on track. The Jews are safe, at least through the mid-40s. The big 1936 Olympics occur.....without the Hitler background.
Avoiding the Nazi episode entirely? Who knows? Another dynamic speaker in the 1940s, with the introduction of the mass media, radio and movies? A Nazi apparatus now developing with the depression over and more science/technology possible? Nuke weapon usage over New York City or Washington D.C. by the world war occurring in 1951 instead of 1942? The Soviet Union in less of a position to prevent the invasion of western USSR?
The study ends up concluding that women put more thought into the process, and weren't that willing to kill Hitler to prevent WW II. Right or wrong? Neither....it's simply the study.
If you knew the outcome of killing Hitler.....maybe it'd make it all easier to make such a decision. But you can't be sure of the consequences. You might end up creating a bigger mess rather than stopping a world war.