An army without it's leader for any amount of time is not going to last long. The power struggle would allow for something to be done while they're fussing over who gets to be the next Hitler. Decisions would be harder to make during the "election" (assassinations). It'd be a nice big window to make a move for the Allies. And by a move I mean destroying/capturing airfields near Berlin which would allow Fighter-Bombers to bring the pain to major cities, and more specifically, factories. A flight of 4 or 8 low flying P-47s can kill a factory very effectively and accurately with rockets and/or bombs. Strafing runs would be able to destroy convoys, delivery trucks, and trains. Eventually the Luftwaffe would be totally out of supplies, while the allies are still bringing more planes and more fuel the more momentum they get.
In WWI ther e was effectively a change of regime when Ludendorf came to power. Not quite an assassination, or a coup, I will grant you, but a power struggle and a bitter grab for power nonetheless. In August 1916, Falkenhayn resigned as Chief of the General Staff. Hindenburg took his place; Ludendorff declined to be known as "Second Chief of the General Staff" and instead insisted on the title First Generalquartiermeister, on condition that all orders were sent out jointly from the two men. Together they formed the so-called Third Supreme Command.As for his rank, he was promoted to General of the Infantry. He effectively from that point became the supreme leader in Germany, with the Kaiser reduced to figurehead status. There was no apparent " window of oportunity" at the front for the allies.
Ludendorff was the chief manager of the German war effort, with the popular general von Hindenburg his pliant front man.
In May 1940, there was effectively a vote of no confidence in Neville Chamberlain, with Churchill being voted in as head of a new government on the very day that Fall Gelb was unleashed. There was considerable confusion at the top as Churchill formed his new government. but no apparent effect on operations at the front.
In June 1944, following the crushing defeats at Phillipines Sea, war leader Tojo was ousted and replaced by a more peace oriented leader (I forget his name). Again, there is is no discernable evidence that the Japanese showed any signs of faltering at the front.
In 1945, Roosevelt died and was replaced by Truman. I dont know enough to make any comments about the level of dislocation this caused. Hitler however had hoped that the death of Roosevelt might break up the grand alliance ranged against the Axis powers. No such outcome, no evidence of "missed opportunities" either.
We have no evidence really that Germany would collapse in the event of hitlers death. I see it as a convenient extension of blaming Hitler for everything. He was part of the german problem, but the problem was bigger than just one man. I think that had Hitler been killed, the new regie would indeed sue for peace, but not unconditional, and not unde the terms of occupation. I have very serious doubts that the allies would deviate from the Casblanca declaration of unconditional surrender. Faced with that the new German leadership would probably seek better terms through the field of battle.
Killing hitler, in my opinion would have no effect on the liklehood of an early peace, and given hitlers ecentricities, would probably prolong the war....
