A
athenasius
Guest
You have a gun aimed at Hittler, the leader of Nazi Germany. Would it be morally acceptable to shoot?
- Status
P
Pfaffenhoffen
Guest
It was morally unacceptable not to shoot him…
M
manualman
Guest
If this is a time machine question and you’re asking Americans if it is OK to go back to January 1942 and kill Hitler, I would say yes. Legitimate military target in a just war, duly declared and justified.
If you are asking if a German in 1935 would have been justified in assassinating him based on (justified) suspicions about where he planned to take Germany, the answer is no. The ends don’t justify the means.
Approving of the latter is the same as approving of killing abortionists today. Not our role, not our call.
If you are asking if a German in 1935 would have been justified in assassinating him based on (justified) suspicions about where he planned to take Germany, the answer is no. The ends don’t justify the means.
Approving of the latter is the same as approving of killing abortionists today. Not our role, not our call.
A
Anathama_Sit
Guest
Greetings Pfaffenhoffen,
So if we start deciding if it is morally unacceptable for a person to live, do you know where that gets us? Certainly not in a state of peace and one that is that God would wish for us to be.
If he fell in war then that is a different thing. But one does not have a right to shoot someone except for the reasons and exceptions given forth in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. And the way the OP stated the question does not fall into those categories.
A moral evil can never be right or good in God’s eyes.
God Bless.
Anathama Sit
C
Crusading_Canuk
Guest
If your home country (Canada for me) was at war with the Third Reich at the time, then yes to assassinate Hitler would have been as morally acceptable as it is for a soldier to shoot their enemy on the field of battle; it is in defence of your country. The Church has theology on Just War, and given the aggressive actions of Nazi Germany, WWII was about as “Just” as you could hope for.
If you mean whether or not executing him would be ok, then the answer would also be “yes”, since the Book of Genesis God sanctioned the death penalty as being acceptable (even required in some cases) for the shedding of innocent blood.
If you mean whether or not executing him would be ok, then the answer would also be “yes”, since the Book of Genesis God sanctioned the death penalty as being acceptable (even required in some cases) for the shedding of innocent blood.
O
OraLabora
Guest
It really boils down to the circumstances. Morally, I believe that if we have a soldier cornered and the soldier does not pose a threat (i.e. is disarmed or is wounded) or gave himself up, then ISTM the morally correct choice would be to take him as a prisoner of war. Since Hitler was the supreme commander of his armed forces he would be entitled to the same treatment.
He then would have been kept prisoner until the war ended (assuming this scenario happened before the end of the war), and then tried at the Nuremberg trials, where no doubt he would have (licitly) received the death sentence like most of his henchmen.
On the other hand if he was armed and was threatening his captor, then we would be justified in shooting him. So I voted “yes”, but as with so many of these polls the real answer is too nuanced for a black-and-white response like “yes” or “no”.
You’ll note that your country did not kill Saddam Hussein when they found him but captured him and had him tried and convicted under Iraqi law. Although I did not agree with the war in Iraq, that was the morally correct procedure in the circumstances, IMHO.
He then would have been kept prisoner until the war ended (assuming this scenario happened before the end of the war), and then tried at the Nuremberg trials, where no doubt he would have (licitly) received the death sentence like most of his henchmen.
On the other hand if he was armed and was threatening his captor, then we would be justified in shooting him. So I voted “yes”, but as with so many of these polls the real answer is too nuanced for a black-and-white response like “yes” or “no”.
You’ll note that your country did not kill Saddam Hussein when they found him but captured him and had him tried and convicted under Iraqi law. Although I did not agree with the war in Iraq, that was the morally correct procedure in the circumstances, IMHO.
C
Castello
Guest
Only if I am an executioner who has the authority to carry out a legitimate death penalty.
Not if I am just some guy who wants to shoot some bad guy.
Not if I am just some guy who wants to shoot some bad guy.
B
Bezant
Guest
I mean, it’s an interesting question but it’s not answerable beyond doubt.
What would happen if Katherine of Aragon had a healthy son, if the Turks and Abbassids conquered Europe, if the 11th century Norman invasion epic-failed, if Ghandi was English…
There’s no reason to assume, if we were in a position at the time, that things would happen as we know they’ve happened.
Would killing Hitler have done anything, even if it was morally acceptable? Not likely IMO. He was surrounded by subordinates with the same outlook and ruled over a cowed public. Someone could have easily picked up where he left off, anyway.
L
Lost_Wanderer
Guest
Only if he refuses to surrender and beg for his life by groveling at my feet… (or better yet, the feet of a Jew). 
L
Lost_Wanderer
Guest
That’s a wee bit sketchy. Sure we still got Neo-Nazis but they’re no longer the monster that Nazi Germany was back in WWII. Taking Hitler out of the picture seemed effective enough to me.
V
vera_dicere
Guest
Since time travel isn’t an issue in this circumstance, I’d go back and find the art teacher who told young Adolf his art was rubbish, then take said teacher into the future a few years and show him the horrors of the camps, then take him back to his orginial time line and encourage him to encourage Hitler with his art.
Just think today we could be discussing Hitler in different context if that art teacher had been nicer to him.
Or maybe, while recovering from the gas injury he got in WWI, we could rig it so he’s nursed by the nicest Jewish woman ever. Perhaps changing his opinion on Jews altogether.
Its really quite assinine to go on about shooting or not shooting Hitler. If Hitler and shooter were on the battle field, both armed, both with the intention of shooting the enemy, then it is not immoral. If it was an assassination, that just ends up in the debate of one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter. If someone assassinated Bush while the Iraq/Afganistan wars were in full steam, would the actions of that terrorist/assiassin be moral? If Hitler was just minding his own business then shooting him is not moral. Just like the whole “if you could shoot Hitler’s mum or convince her to abort Hitler, would you?” line of questioning.
Just think today we could be discussing Hitler in different context if that art teacher had been nicer to him.
Or maybe, while recovering from the gas injury he got in WWI, we could rig it so he’s nursed by the nicest Jewish woman ever. Perhaps changing his opinion on Jews altogether.
Its really quite assinine to go on about shooting or not shooting Hitler. If Hitler and shooter were on the battle field, both armed, both with the intention of shooting the enemy, then it is not immoral. If it was an assassination, that just ends up in the debate of one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter. If someone assassinated Bush while the Iraq/Afganistan wars were in full steam, would the actions of that terrorist/assiassin be moral? If Hitler was just minding his own business then shooting him is not moral. Just like the whole “if you could shoot Hitler’s mum or convince her to abort Hitler, would you?” line of questioning.
B
Bezant
Guest
To start with, neo-Nazism is only an imitation of Third Reich Nazism.
But that they’re different is besides the point. There are loads of reasons why neo-Nazis aren’t running death camps. It has nothing to do with a positive change in their philosophy.
It could be effective. You might save millions of lives.Taking Hitler out of the picture seemed effective enough to me.
And you might be responsible for a complete disaster, worse than what’s in the history books.
What I stress, as another poster noted, are the circumstances: time and information.
In 1930, I can only know as much about Hitler as there’s information I can access. Assuming the most important motivation to kill Hitler is to avert the Holocaust and World War II, I’d have no idea from 1930 that either of these would happen as they did. And even if I did forsee the Holocaust and World War II, I have no idea that something, or someone else, could trigger those events regardless, or even hasten/worsen them.
Part of the OP’s question, on whether it’s morally acceptable, hinges on ‘What would have happened instead, and is it better than what happened historically?’ You can make good guesses, but they’re still guesses.
L
Lost_Wanderer
Guest
Could the fact that their founder died a most humiliating death right after suffering the most humiliating defeat in a large-scale war be a factor? Serious, question.
Yes I’m aware that this question needs more elaboration. I personally don’t think it wise to kill Hitler before WW2 era. vera dicere’s suggestion regarding his upbringing prior to being the monster mastermind behind the Third Reich sounds like the wiser course of action than simply killing him.
On the other hand, if we’re talking about killing the Adolf Hitler of WW2, the man who gave us the Holocaust, and pretty much one of the closest things the real world had to a super villain, then surely eliminating him was at least considered by the Allies already.
Perhaps it’s really a question of how important he was to the Nazis and if he was really replaceable. :\
C
carn
Guest
The difference is, that in German state laws of 1918 (and thereby 1935) there were clauses that every citizen has the right to resist a government, if that government is attempting to abolish the basic core of the constitution, if other means are not adequate. This is also in the today German constitution, §20.4.
According to lagal opinion in Germany a government intent on abolishing basic human rights is continously in an act of aggresion in its graveness at least equal to murder versus all German citizens. Therefore even in absence of explicit laws allowing resistance, it would be allowed anyway.
So at least in German legal opinion from the moment on, from which one could be reasonably certain about Hitlers plans and from which non-violent resistance is inefficient, violence versus Hitler and the entire Nazi leadership are considered to be acts of self-defense. There is even a case, where this was legally discussed, an attempt on Hitlers live in 1939. From what i remember the only open questions were regarding when to set the date where violence was permissable - 1935-1937 is most often suggested - and whether risking the life of innocents is allowed. (In the attempt 1939 2 innocent persons died, as a bomb was used.)
Considering that for a german in 1935 the question is open, as the intent of Hitler to abolish basic human rights was obvious there. Question is just whether there were other options avaible and whether it would have been effective.
And yes, using that logic on abortion would allow for violence if non-violent means are ineffective and the violent means are effective, at least according to german law. (I include this description of german law not because i consider it perfect but because it is interesting.)
As i consider Hitler was conducting an ongoing and effective attack against the human rights of everybody at least in Europe starting around 1919, lethal self-defense was permissable from the moment on when lesser means would have been ineffective. This moment was probably 1933 in my opinion.
H
Hadrianus
Guest
Interesting points about the German Constitution of 1919, though I somehow doubt that the Constitution itself would have referred to human rights at such an early date.
This question became more than simply theoretical in 1944 when a group of officers decided that to assassinate Hitler was morally justified. i have heard it said that Stauffenberg who was one of the leaders of the plot did consult Cardinal von Preysing of Berlin, who considered the action permissible on the grounds of tyrannicide.
In Catholic moral theology there is something of a division of opinion on the mral acceptability of tyrannicide, but weighty theologians such as Suarez and I believe St Robert Bellarmine, have endorsed the principle under strict conditions.
This question became more than simply theoretical in 1944 when a group of officers decided that to assassinate Hitler was morally justified. i have heard it said that Stauffenberg who was one of the leaders of the plot did consult Cardinal von Preysing of Berlin, who considered the action permissible on the grounds of tyrannicide.
In Catholic moral theology there is something of a division of opinion on the mral acceptability of tyrannicide, but weighty theologians such as Suarez and I believe St Robert Bellarmine, have endorsed the principle under strict conditions.
B
Bezant
Guest
No. Hitler’s defeat just isn’t relevant.Bezant: But that they’re different is besides the point. There are loads of reasons why neo-Nazis aren’t running death camps. It has nothing to do with a positive change in their philosophy.
Could the fact that their founder died a most humiliating death right after suffering the most humiliating defeat in a large-scale war be a factor [that neo-Nazis aren’t running death camps]? Serious, question.
I agree.
They did.
I think, if I was fearless and in the same situation as Claus von Stauffenberg, I’d have few qualms about shooting (or exploding) Hitler. For those of you who haven’t seen the film Valkyrie, von Stauffenberg was a real-life German officer who had access to Hitler’s inner circle and organised an assassination attempt. He obviously failed, but he was as responsible as he could have been–he at least knew about the Final Solution and made rudimentary plans on how to handle the government crisis in the aftermath.
But to have anyone, even a soldier, shoot Hitler, just to avoid the Holocaust and without any other considerations–it could be disastrous.
C
carn
Guest
Maybe i did not state it clearly, it were some non-federal laws stating this, e.g. the “constitution” of the state of Bremen.
It was not in the federal constitution of germany. And the group around Stauffenberg and other German officers were actually uncertain about their actions precisely because there was no law regarding a government that was abolishing the basic of laws itself.
Therefore, when after the war it was decided to rearm Germany and to include in the constitution laws in regardind war, it was decided to include explicitly to include a the right to resist a government that tries to abolish the core of the constitution. (As having anarmy and war powers would put government into the position to try this)
But according to german legal opinion even without explicit mention, every german has and had the right to have a government upholding the core of the constitution and any government attempting to outright abolish this core is an attacker against whom adequate self-defense is legal.
P
Pfaffenhoffen
Guest
Hitler had 20 and more attempts to his life. Some who did it like Stauffenberger and Rommel were soldiers. They paid with their lives the following of their conscience.
I do not see much difference between soldier an civilian in this aspect. I know that Genev convention has this distinction but for this subject, it does not matter for the civilian would not be at war as, for instance, Hitler wouldbe passing by.
I am not dwelling in the theological cathegories otherwise I will be lost. But if Hitler’s killing may avoid 6 million death of Jews, of course it is a morally obligation to kill him.
Suppose that you have a precision gun. There a fellow who has got a hostage and threatening to execute him/her. With my precision gun, I would have no qualms to shoot down the criminal.
A
Anathama_Sit
Guest
Greetings Pfaffenhoffen,
This scenario is synonomous with one that you were in a bank with 100 other people. Someone came into rob it. They thrust a gun in your hand and told you to shoot someone, else everyone was going to die. IT would be morally wrong for you to shoot one to save the 99. A moral evil never is right.
God Bless.
Anathama Sit
C
carn
Guest
The solution is that Hitler was committing murder or at least a crime equal to murder and therefore lethal force against him - if effective - was justified.
If someone breaks in a house to murder someone, the act of murder already started with the break in and therefore self-defense against a would-be murderer is different to self-defense when the would-be murderer readies his weapon only different due to different options. (e.g. while he breaks in you could run, when he draws a weapon that might not be an option)
Hitler started his criminal act on January 30, 1933 at latest. Obvious was his criminal act at latest 1939. The only issue left is, if there was a situation where assasinating Hitler was the least serious act of self defense and yet an effective act. (Because he was not acting alone.)
- Status