Well killing babies for a crime they did not yet commit is worse than Hitler, But to answer to your question, someone else will probably do the job instead, it might be conducted in a different style but will have the same objective to get germany back on the map after losing ww1. Hitler was not a lone wolf with his thoughts about the jews he just shouted to everyone's worst fear while the country was doing poorly and managed to capture their support not much different from today's politicians

And you would expect that with such a strict and conservative mindset they will ban apples :)

People who take the law into their own hands can be law enforcement officers and high officials whose influence can override the law and as we know people will always exploit their status if they can benefit from it and they do in all cases.

The road to punish someone and get away with it is easier than assumed by society, what about ethics at the end of the day the child who inherited his father's punishment did nothing wrong and was not participating in the crime. Should he be punished regardless? Who should receive the punishment in this scenario and why? If at all.

,Did we abandoned “An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth." ?