"The long-standing reluctance of militaries to engage in the targeted killing of heads of state is based more on custom...

>"The long-standing reluctance of militaries to engage in the targeted killing of heads of state is based more on custom than codified regulation. (It’s not really in the interest of presidents and prime ministers for that sort of thing to become common practice.)"

>"The closest thing in international law to a ban on assassination is the 1907 Hague Convention on the laws of war, which prohibits signatories from attempting "To kill or wound treacherously individuals belonging to the hostile nation or army."

Would there have been less wars in the 20th century if it became a common practice to assassinate hostile leaders during wars?

>Le great man theory babby.

>if it became a common practice to assassinate hostile leaders during wars?

It was common practice, and it didn't matter too much. There were dozens (?) of assasination attempts on Napoleon and I believe a whole 40+ on Hitler too. Obviously they failed. Many medieval rulers were assassinated by rival Kingdoms.

But what if the ruler would get replaced by a more competent one? Then killing him is a very bad idea. Generally, you see, there is not so much advantage to be gained in this as people think.

I'm not implying great man theory, my question is basically this: if those who are in the position to decide on declaring wars were more in danger due to their decisions, would there be less wars?

For example, WW1 wouldn't break out if all of the countries' leaders were too afraid to declare war. It's not like French and German civilians would still get weapons and march to the fronts on their own, dig trenches and start killing each other.

The allies never tried to assassinate Hitler though, all of those attempts were by German dissidents or resistance fighters. The allies actually thought that Hitler is so incompetent as a strategist that it's better to let him ruin the German war effort.

I think you should read up on the Great Convention and why the forms must be obeyed.

Even if Hitler died, he would've just been replaced by Himmler. Autocracies are always ruled by a small caste of functionaries, not just by one guy.
That's why it was so crucial for Operation Walküre to be so extremely extensive as it was and not just assassinate Hitler. In fact, it would've succeeded despite Hitler not dying, if they hadn't pulled back because many falsely assumed that actually killing Hitler was necessary, despite them already having had the capacity to overthrow the government.

>That fucking image

We would get a Dune-style 'War of Assassins'

>when you are a nationalist but also a degenerate