You´re talkin 1939. Right before Poland was under attack.
It would not have stopped the WWII. Germans and Russians back then were in bed together big time and the west did not have any other means than big words. However, it may have had a total different outcome. Hitler was solely responsible for loosing 1.000.000,= fighters and all the material that goes with it at Stalingrad. Why? he was aiming at a political victory instead of a military. By doing so, he weakened the military capability. Right after Stalingrad, the Germans and the Russians have fought the biggest tank battle in history. Obviously, Germans lost and could never recuperate from it.
Therefore, without his influence, the was outcome may have had a devastating effect. Just imagine the Russian army way back in Irkoets, the Krim in German hands (OIL), the military rescources thrown at the UK desert army from behind. It would have meant a Eurasian stronghold wich was hard to penetrate from the UK Island. By then, the US may have thought it better to consider not to embark on a second front.
Given the time the Germans needed to develop The Bomb, jetfighters, rockets and the like, I am alomst inclined to say, let´s be glad he had the chance to fuck up his options. But at the other hand, it may have evoked a German civil war as well. And history has taught us there´s nothing more destructive than a civil was. The wounds won´t heal.
So, what in its place is more preferable? Twisting the issue even more, would you rather have a short war with say 10 million dead instead of a longer war wich may deprive 50 million people of their rightfull life? Where does that leave one with moral affiliations like we seem to have? Is there, eventually merit in the goal santifying the means?
About Sober Joe, no, he isn´t worth a bullet. Give him a house with enough booze to permit him to enjoy a permant state of detachment to our more earthlier necesities and it would have done the job just fine with eventually the same outcome. Selfdestruction guaranteed.
To take and give live and death is a descretion we all take with us every day. To me, it seems to be a matter of defining where loyalties and responsibilities lie. There is good, there is bad and there is "Triskele" (celtic), doing a little bad thing for the right reasons may make the dead itself admissable. Consider the Coupe de Grace, crime passionelle, etc. I think live is full of such examples. It is a philosofy we even practise on our kids. We wouldn´t let them run accros the street in heavr traffic just for their free will, wouldn´t we.
And Uzzah, I know it a hollywood fairytale, but the story you relayed remebered me about Tears of the Sun. Yes, it only takes one bullet in many cases and I applaud the mans spirit to remember who he was. I would have had the same temptation. If you see him another time, convey my sympathies.