There probably was a time when killing Hitler had a significant chance of ending the war by enabling peace talks (allowing some high-ranking German generals/politicians to seize power while plausibly denying having wanted this outcome). The window might have been short, and probably a bit after ’42, though. I’d guess any time between the Battle of Stalingrad (where Germany stopped winning) and the Battle of Kursk (which made Soviet victory inevitable) should’ve worked—everyone involved should rationally prefer white peace to the very real possibility of a bloody stalemate. Before, Germany would not accept. Afterwards, the Soviets wouldn’t.
It’s also worth noting that “I would set off a bomb if it would avert or shorten the Holocaust even if it would kill a bunch of babies” would still answer the question…
…or maybe it wouldn’t, because the whole point of the question is that you might be wrong that it would end the war. See for comparison “I would set off a bomb and kill a bunch of innocent Americans if it would end American imperialism”, which has a surprising tendency to not end American imperialism and in fact make it worse.
Overall I think if everyone followed a heuristic of “never kill babies”, the world would be better on average. However you could get a problem if only the carefully moral people follow that rule and the less-careful don’t and end up winning. For a consequentialist, a good rule would be “any ethical injunction which causes itself to be defeated cannot be used”.
At the very least, the heuristic of “don’t violate Geneva Convention-like agreements restricting war to make it less horrible which the other side has stuck to” seems reasonable, although it’s less clear for cases like where a few enemy soldiers individually violate it, or where being the first to violate it gives a major advantage and you’re worried the other side might do so.
There probably was a time when killing Hitler had a significant chance of ending the war by enabling peace talks (allowing some high-ranking German generals/politicians to seize power while plausibly denying having wanted this outcome). The window might have been short, and probably a bit after ’42, though. I’d guess any time between the Battle of Stalingrad (where Germany stopped winning) and the Battle of Kursk (which made Soviet victory inevitable) should’ve worked—everyone involved should rationally prefer white peace to the very real possibility of a bloody stalemate. Before, Germany would not accept. Afterwards, the Soviets wouldn’t.
It’s also worth noting that “I would set off a bomb if it would avert or shorten the Holocaust even if it would kill a bunch of babies” would still answer the question… …or maybe it wouldn’t, because the whole point of the question is that you might be wrong that it would end the war. See for comparison “I would set off a bomb and kill a bunch of innocent Americans if it would end American imperialism”, which has a surprising tendency to not end American imperialism and in fact make it worse.
Overall I think if everyone followed a heuristic of “never kill babies”, the world would be better on average. However you could get a problem if only the carefully moral people follow that rule and the less-careful don’t and end up winning. For a consequentialist, a good rule would be “any ethical injunction which causes itself to be defeated cannot be used”. At the very least, the heuristic of “don’t violate Geneva Convention-like agreements restricting war to make it less horrible which the other side has stuck to” seems reasonable, although it’s less clear for cases like where a few enemy soldiers individually violate it, or where being the first to violate it gives a major advantage and you’re worried the other side might do so.