Let's start with simple question:

Would the elimination of Adolph Hitler prior to the 1933 election, or even at birth, prevented the WWII and Holocaust?

If you look at the "reality works" presented by games (like "Red Alert") and other media the answer would be yes.

Reality of course is just clever propaganda designed to obfuscate the reality, and tie one exposed to it, that the individual people cause things to happen. That "shoot the bastard" is actually a viable technique. Just count how many times you thought how eliminating one or the other individual would make great difference.

Reflect on images of Americans cheering 'disposing' of Osama bin Laden.

And just as the death of Osama was irrelevant to the war in Afghanistan, so would be any other kill to any other "war on idea" - but the very thing that people believe it would, is a glimpse into underlying reality of things.

While we like to believe the lives and actions of individuals, especially "acts of courage" matter, they do not - at least not in a broad scope of things.

Take the "kill Hitler" question. Problem is we associate the IDEA of National Socialism with the guy with mustache.

What escapes is how that idea managed to inject into minds of at least 70 million participants (counting Reich alone- but idea was very popular in many other countries on both sides of Atlantic).

Let's try to map how it happened, starting with "socialism”part of meme.

Idea of socialism is really simple:

1. 1)you take a large group of people, usually encompassing all inhabitants of geographical region
   

2. 2)the group would not be homogenous- meaning there will be differences in wealth i.e. assets produced/assets gained spread over time.
   

3) having the group and knowing who has which assets, you pool them and    then distribute according to needs.

There are of course many schools of thought that differ on how the group should be assembled, should membership be voluntary or forced, should all the goods/wealth gained be put in the common pool or just percentage or it.

What every supporter of the scheme likes to gloss over is the group affected by the scheme would be inevitably divided into 2 sub-groups:

those in over-average output, whose gains will be taken, and those with under-average output, who will be given.

In pre-spin talk it is basically "Rob Peter to pay Paul" scheme.

The trick is to make participants believe they are all Paul's or brainwash them into thinking that their work serves the greater good. First version is usually efficient with working class, the second exploits the gullibility present in "intelligentsia". Of course there are many other mind-spin schemes devised into making people believe they want to give those goods away.

Another thing glossed over is that someone must do the pooling and dividing. Obviously it is a perfect spot for someone that wants to do a little bit of skimming. Again- there are many ways to make it appear that the scheme is legit.

No matter how clever the scheme is, inevitably the input falls, as people (even brainwashed ones) will not work effectively in a all-work-no-gain scheme. They will rebel, subconsciously if no open rebel (due fear or brainwashing) is not possible. (The study of countries that were behind the iron curtain shows incredible levels of such subconscious sabotage, coupled with lingering belief in "good of the system" - 20 years after system itself bought the farm; mind-job, eh?)

When input falls, perpetrators of the scheme seek alternative sources of input (giving up the scheme altogether is not on the table).

This alternatives can take many forms, but usually take form of:

1) seeking the wealth outside territory under influence ie. war

2) selling of parts of territory/assets to outside 'investors' (assets include workforce- see China)

3) declaring part of the territory to be sucked dry

The third point brings us to the "National" part of National Socialism.

The idea of nation can have very petty explanations, but boils down to designation some people being different than the others. The different valuation follows.

There is usually a cover story to explain why there is difference, starting with living in a place that is marked on the other side of the border-line of the map (map is associative idea linking 'piece of paper' with landscape!), other skin colour, or different language "natively" spoken. The difference is usually exaggerated by hi-Story.

Having established that some people are different, it is much easier to explain why they need to be exploited.

So the core of "National Socialism" is exploiting designated 'others' in order to give to the 'needy' that belong to the 'chosen' nation.

Stating things like that shows that the general idea is quite old- at least as long as a narrative of the 'Bible' (chosen land/nation and all that).

When you understand the above - and it can be hard, in many places conflicts with the programming you received - you see that the "man in charge" is largely irrelevant.

As long as people consider the idea to be a valid one - they will try to make it real. They will give energy/power to those declaring that they will make it happen. Generation after generation this belief will shape their mental landscape, creating a power pyramid - a power niche, and there always be people that will feel that they need to fill it.

Doesn't matter how many 'top brass' you eliminate - as long as structure is intact, there will be others.

In order to fight the idea - you need to invalidate it.

The key is perception. And that is actually why World War II has label of "good war" - the exposing of death camps delivered enough shock to invalidate the 'national' part of the meme, thus producing visible change.

Then again, the 'socialism' meme is in very good condition, and serves as a core philosophy of every single country out there. Which makes sure that sooner or later, it will need outside source of input.