Comments by "Geoff Lepper" (@geofflepper3207) on "Forget about war fatigue: It will be a long war" video.

@glibsonoran This is the second time lately that I have heard the claim that during WW2 the allies made the decision that they would not try to assassinate Hitler because they figured that Hitler's bad decisions were hurting the German military's results in the field. Don't know if the claim is true but I think that there is a good chance that bad decisions would continue after Hitler was dead because it was likely that if Hitler was killed he would not have been replaced by a general or group of generals but more likely by another leading Nazi extremist from Hitler's group of cronies - a Nazi extremist just as likely as Hitler to make more mistakes. Also, Hitler's death could have touched off chaotic infighting between Nazi leaders, each one wanting to take Hitler's position. I've read that after WW2 started Hitler never had a regular cabinet meeting because he didn't want all of his cabinet ministers to have a chance to talk together and possibly scheme together. That would suggest that leading Nazis were distant from each other, physically and otherwise, and so might not cooperate too well if they suddenly had to decide who should replace Hitler. Chaos and confusion and infighting among the Nazi elite would have been good for the allies. It's also true that the German officers who tried to assassinate Hitler seemed to feel that Hitler was the biggest obstacle to them trying to negotiate an end to the war though perhaps a new Nazi leader would be just as much an obstacle and perhaps the German generals were never going to agree to the unconditional surrender that the allies would have insisted on anyway.
1
One thing to add to what he said. Not only would stopping the supply of weapons to Ukraine not lead to peace and likely lead to renewed Russian gsins but it could also lead to complete Ukrainian defeat and then to an emboldened Imperialist Russian regime deciding to invsde the Baltic states or Poland next under the assumption that western countries are weak and impatient with conflict and prone to just letting Russia have what it wants in the end. In the past few decades Russia launched Imperialist invasions to steal territory from Moldova, Georgia, Chechnya (twice) and Ukraine (in 2014). Each time the west said, "Let Russia have what it wants and then it will be satisfied and we will have peace" and each time Russia saw western inaction and indifference as a sign of weakness and felt emboldened to launch another unprovoked imperialist invasion to steal territory from another country. Cut off supplies of weapons to Ukraine and let Russia conquer Ukraine and there will be same response by Russia as the previous times - Imperialist Russia will then like before feel emboldened to launch more invasions of more countries which obviously is not peace. The only way to convince Imperialist Russia that the west is strong and determined and thus that invading other countries is a bad idea and thus to have peace is for the west to supply Ukraine with enough military supplies and equipment and financial support to defeat Russian forces in the field or cause the Russian government to plunge into bankruptcy due to the cost of the war (although more effective sanctions on Russia would also help). The other alternative is for NATO airforces to get involved in the war and destroy the Russian invasion force in Ukraine. A Russian loss in Ukraine is the only way to peace as contradictory as that may sound at first.
1