Many people don't know this but we could have assassinated Hitler in 1944 before D-day but didn't because we assumed correctly that killing him would only prolong the war and that he would make a bunch of stupid mistakes and play right into our hands.

We knew when he was at Berchtesgarden, when he took his daily walks, that he walked way out in front of his security detail because that was really the only time he had to himself, where to parachute in whithout detection, plans for escape. The whole shabang.

People argued correctly that because of the way the German military command structure was set-up, if Hitler were kept in power, he would undoubtedly screw things up in favor of the Allies. Which is exactly what he did.

He kept several panzer divisions at Calais for a week after Normandie. When he finally capitulated he didn't even release enough troops to get the job done, they were caught in the Falaise pocket and annihilated. He ordered that the best gun in the world, the shturmgivar not be made (but they made some anyway) he ordered that the ME 262 be used only for bombing until it was too late. Huge resources were put into the V-weapons but in the final result the cost per allied casualty was astronomical on an already strained economy. The battle of the Bulge, which drained other scarce men, materiel, and fuel. And probably dozens of other mistakes.

So this begs the question: If we had asassinated him, do you think the war would have dragged on longer? Western doctors believed at the time that since he had both Parkensons disease and was an amphetamine addict, he would not have lived to see 1946 anyway. Would someone more competent stepped into his shoes after we killed him? Either Himmler or Goering, but Goering was a joke even to his peers. Heydrich was a shoe-in but was killed in 1942. Jodl? Bormann? Doenitz? Rommel?

What are your thoughts on this story?

Swaz