Assassination attempts on Adolf Hilter during World War II were unsuccessful. However, it was the belief of many Allied leaders that this would effectively end the propaganda machine of Nazi Germany. Eliminating Adolf Hilter would effectively end the war with Germany and, thus, assassination attempts were considered a viable option. In particular, should one have been successful, it might have saved many lives and needless casualties in the quest to end the war.
Hitler's suicide marks a huge event in history. When leaders fall, their regime often falls with them. Hitler had a regime that can really only be described as evil. We had to do everything we could to stop that. Assassination is not always a justifiable action, but in this situation, it certainly was.
The use of assassination as a means to end a war should only be used against those individuals who are the most inhumane and unreasonable. If there is no other way to stop their mass killings of other human beings, I believe assassination is a viable option.
Hitler committed suicide, which I believe was a major turning point in World War 2 that effectively led to the end of the Third Reich, and the eventual ending of the war. There were several failed assassination attempts on him though. History has shown that when a leader takes a turn for the downside (i.e. Napoleon, etc.), generally, his/her followers tend to follow.
If Hitler had been assassinated early on, it might have even prevented World War 2. And it was clearly his naked aggression that was the causus belli. I would not normally support the assassination of freely-elected heads of state, but this situation was so stark and so rife with the prospect of giant-scale warfare that one man's killing would have been morally justifiable. It's clearly for the greater good to kill one man if that would mean saving millions from a similar fate.
Killing a head of state is ordinarily anathema to the rule of law, but in cases in which the head of state is responsible for ongoing genocide, the moral and presumably the legal calculi change dramatically. Given the role Hitler played in motivating and directing the slaughter of millions of people - even, I believe, when doing so was harming the German war effort - it seems that killing him would at least have increased the likelihood that the industrial mass murder he'd orchestrated would stop. Absent such an ongoing crisis situation, the appropriate response to a suspected war criminal is to put the person under arrest and to subject the person to a trial. Unfortunately, the Holocaust was an unfolding crisis, one that needed and should have received more urgent, aggressive action to stop it.
These days many people across the world want maverick world leaders to either be killed (Saddam Hussein) for their perceived "sins" or to rot in jail for the rest of their lives. It is up to each country and countrymen and women to decide what it best in their own country (baring horrendous acts of torture and violence). WWII was a very different era and so it's impossible to go back and second guess it, however Hitler's acts were so heinous and he was clearly such a coward no other option but a bullet to his brain would have occurred either by his own hand or others.
Under normal circumstances, all reasonable people agree that political assassination is a terrible thing. However, the middle of a genocide moves the situation well outside of normal circumstances. There's a difference between a soldier killing an enemy, and one person killing another for no reason.
Hitler was a charismatic leader who was very popular in Germany, but there were many insiders who were against him and even plotted to assassinate him. At the time, other people within the German government and military were afraid to speak out against him. If Hitler had been assassinated, and the German people informed of what was really going on, the war might have ended sooner.
Hitler was one of the most evil men in human history. He was personally responsible for the torture and murder of untold numbers of Jews, homosexuals, political dissidents, and others. Killing him would clearly have saved these lives, and thus been justified. Moreover, assassinating Hitler could have ended (or even prevented) World War II, which also took many lives and caused extreme destruction throughout Europe, including in Germany. While assassinating a person is a morally dubious act, this is one of those rare cases where the extreme harm caused by the individual, as well as his inherent evil, justify it.
Hitler was simply the central figure of the Nazi party. History often views him as acting alone with a few co-conspirators, but, in truth, there were thousands in the upper command entirely willing to continue the war in his absence. By the time that ending the war was even a thought, Germany was already so entrenched, both culturally and politically, that assassination would not have changed anything.
he can still be alive they never found his body so that dosent prove nothing
The reason Germany conquered so much of Europe so quickly was because Hitler had skilled generals. When he replaced all those generals with idiots who agreed with everything he said (he didn't want to be overshadowed by his generals) he started losing. If Hitler was killed, though, one of his smarter, more competent officials, like Himmler or Goebbels, could have taken control and continued to fight, dragging the war on for much longer than it was.
The analysis arguing that Germany was so entrenched with racist evil that killing Hitler would have changed nothing is correct. Himmler, Goebbels or Goring may have been just as bad if not worse than Hitler. The significant problem is that if Hitler were assassinated, his replacement may not have been the bumbling idiot that he was militarily. It was in the best interest of the Allied effort to not attempt to kill Hitler regardless of the evil that he manifested. Otherwise, under astute military leadership, German forces may have had far more success. This result is unthinkable.