Z
Zynxensar
Guest
Would it have been morally permissible to stealthily kill Hitler before the events of September 1939? I mean, to a certain extent, Hitler is counted as a “Military target”
Last edited:
- Status
T
TheNoseKnows
Guest
Sure if you are in a just war then government officials are fair game.
Z
Zaccheus
Guest
Before, no. Once the war had begun he’d be a legitimate target. Until then not.
B
BoomBoomMancini
Guest
Short answer is that at least under secular law there is a difference between a targeted killing and an assassination. If a sniper shoots an enemy general, that’s not an “assassination.”
If I remember my law of war stuff correctly, the controlling factor is usually whether the individual is a legitimate target. Military personnel obviously are, and I think Hitler would qualify as the supreme commander of the German military. Someone like the Nazi equivalent of the secretary of the treasury probably wouldn’t be, though.
If I remember my law of war stuff correctly, the controlling factor is usually whether the individual is a legitimate target. Military personnel obviously are, and I think Hitler would qualify as the supreme commander of the German military. Someone like the Nazi equivalent of the secretary of the treasury probably wouldn’t be, though.
B
BoomBoomMancini
Guest
Maybe, but we can lawyer all day about where the theater of operations is. If Hitler is directing military operations from his bunker somewhere, that bunker might well be a military site, even if it’s thousands of miles from the front lines. No more troubling that bombing a munitions plant in Germany even though the bulk of the fighting is taking place in Normandy.
Z
Zaccheus
Guest
Do you have any Church document to confirm this?
I was under the impression assassination is unacceptable.
[/quote]
I have no church document, only my own reaction. Killing your enemy in war is acceptable. Assassination is targeted killing.
Therefore (it seems to me) if you are at war and your target is a legitimate military target, assassination is no worse than any other method of killing your enemies.
As usual I speak under correction from those wiser and better taught than myself.
I was under the impression assassination is unacceptable.
[/quote]
I have no church document, only my own reaction. Killing your enemy in war is acceptable. Assassination is targeted killing.
Therefore (it seems to me) if you are at war and your target is a legitimate military target, assassination is no worse than any other method of killing your enemies.
As usual I speak under correction from those wiser and better taught than myself.
Last edited:
Z
Zaccheus
Guest
however. God Bless!
[/quote]
You raise a good point but I think the morality of war and the morality of the methods used in war are separate issues. Were Allied soldiers guilty of murder for using rifles, on the ground that Nazi soldiers were guilty for using rifles when they invaded other nations?
Hitler was wrong not because he might have used assassination but because he launched an unjustifiable war.
If–and only if–your war is just, then you may justifiably kill your enemy. In which case I think you may justifiably use assassination on legitimate enemy targets.
God’s blessing to you. It’s good to talk with those who know how to argue civilly.
[/quote]
You raise a good point but I think the morality of war and the morality of the methods used in war are separate issues. Were Allied soldiers guilty of murder for using rifles, on the ground that Nazi soldiers were guilty for using rifles when they invaded other nations?
Hitler was wrong not because he might have used assassination but because he launched an unjustifiable war.
If–and only if–your war is just, then you may justifiably kill your enemy. In which case I think you may justifiably use assassination on legitimate enemy targets.
God’s blessing to you. It’s good to talk with those who know how to argue civilly.
Last edited:
D
dshix
Guest
I think the difference here, and the reason why we could consider it morally justified for the Allied forces to assassinate Hitler, but not for him to assassinate their leaders, is the fact that the Allies were fighting a “just war” against Hitler, in which he was the perpetrator.
St. Augustine and St. Aquinas lay out guidelines for what can be considered a “just war”, and the Allies were undoubtedly within those boundaries.
St. Augustine and St. Aquinas lay out guidelines for what can be considered a “just war”, and the Allies were undoubtedly within those boundaries.
P
philipl
Guest
I think your post make the best sense.
P
PaulfromIowa
Guest
Before war was declared? The answer from any theologian at the time would have been no. In hindsight, with knowledge of what Hitler had planned, most of us would say yes. If the world had taken action against Germany during its’ rearmament and aggression against Austria and Czechoslovakia, it may not have been necessary to kill anyone.
R
rcwitness
Guest
I thought the Pope was involved in an attempt, no?
J
joeybaggz
Guest
Don’t think so. The pope in 1937 (Pius XI?) issued an encyclical titled “Mit Brennender Sorge” which was to be read from the pulpit of all RC churches in Germany. It very emphatically denounced the treatment of the Jewish population by Hitler and his army. But I think that was the only thing that was antagonistic of the Hitler regime by the Vatican. One has to remember that the Vatican is in Italy, part of the Axis at that time. Had the pope don’t anything outright, Hitler would have told Mussolini to deliver the Pontiff to Berlin.
And I doubt the Pope has any part in the assassination attempt by German Col. Von Stauffenberg as told in the Tom Cruise movie, Valkyrie.
Last edited:
A
Augustinian
Guest
I don’t think so either, the 1944 attempt on Hitler was by German military officers. The 3rd Reich’s leadership was a suspicious bunch, particularly during the latter phases of the war, but they didn’t have any suspicions about Pius XII in regards to this.
A
Augustinian
Guest
I had never heard of Pius XII engaged in any assassination attempts during WWII. It would have been very risky for Pius to take such a provocative move, especially with Catholics on both sides of the war in Europe, as well as Catholics in neutral states. If it happened, it was way under the radar.
.
However, a former co-worker told me that Gregory XIII put out a hit on Elizabeth I. I don’t know if its true, or just something said as far as propaganda.
.
However, a former co-worker told me that Gregory XIII put out a hit on Elizabeth I. I don’t know if its true, or just something said as far as propaganda.
R
rcwitness
Guest
I don’t think so either. I couldn’t remember what I had watched about all that stuff going on with the Pope trying to be sneaky about hiding Jews and things. Yes, he was pretty cool. Had to play the cards careful!rcwitness:
Don’t think so. The pope in 1937 (Pius XI?) issued an encyclical titled “Mit Brennender Sorge” which was to be read from the pulpit of all RC churches in Germany. It very emphatically denounced the treatment of the Jewish population by Hitler and his army. But I think that was the only thing that was antagonistic of the Hitler regime by the Vatican. One has to remember that the Vatican is in Italy, part of the Axis at that time. Had the pope don’t anything outright, Hitler would have told Mussolini to deliver the Pontiff to Berlin.
And I doubt the Pope has any part in the assassination attempt by German Col. Von Stauffenberg as told in the Tom Cruise movie, Valkyrie.
J
joeybaggz
Guest
Hitler hated the Pope, and I have read in history books that he was going to imprison the Pope when Germany won the war. Hitler really couldn’t take action against the pope until his victory because one, much of Germany was Catholic at the time, and any action against the pope would not be popular in Italy, and definitely not in the U.S.
D
Daylight52
Guest
I would have to say no.Every life is sacred.
R
rcwitness
Guest
That could be the exact same reason one could say “yes”
O
otrrl
Guest
Exactly. this comment broadens the scope of the question immensely to this: I think an assassination is far more justifiable than carpet bombing and indiscriminate killing–as an act of war. Assassination as a violent political action is different.
People will disagree, but the assassination of Osama Bin Laden was an act of war, and not a political assassination, for example, although the action itself involved trapping him in a bedroom and shooting him in cold blood, as it is told. Modern war tactics are asymmetric like this, on both sides. Compared to the carnage and meat grinder effect of the destruction of the world trade center in New York, bin Laden’s death was handled in respect of Muslim custom, if you can imagine that.
Modern war is not fought like ancient wars, with two opposing lines of soldiers advancing on each other, and fighting hand to hand.
People will disagree, but the assassination of Osama Bin Laden was an act of war, and not a political assassination, for example, although the action itself involved trapping him in a bedroom and shooting him in cold blood, as it is told. Modern war tactics are asymmetric like this, on both sides. Compared to the carnage and meat grinder effect of the destruction of the world trade center in New York, bin Laden’s death was handled in respect of Muslim custom, if you can imagine that.
Modern war is not fought like ancient wars, with two opposing lines of soldiers advancing on each other, and fighting hand to hand.
Last edited:
C
Childoftheday
Guest
It is NEVER morally acceptable to take another’s life for political motivations.
- Status