Was it wrong to try to kill Hitler?

[Jimmytwoguns]

HickmanJosh, you state that:-

“JTG’s you are right in saying we should defend our faith and family’s from violence”

But in a previous post you also state:- “It is always wrong to kill; Even if you and your family are being killed”

Make up your mind. Surely you are not saying that we should defend ourselves and loved ones only up to a point, only till it gets serious, but if someone is determined to keep on and tries to kill us or our families, we should give up at that stage as we cannot kill them in self defence? That is simply ridiculous.

The commandment “thou shalt not kill” is interpreteted, “Thou shalt not murder!” The context is that you should not murder someone else.

You may say I merely assume this to be the correct interpretation, but apart what the Church teaches, with which I agree, (there is such a thing as justifiable homicide) the fact is the commandment doesn’t mention humans or people, but we still assume it does, as we kill animals, fish, plants etc, every day. Jesus and the disciples ate fish, and lamb we know this. So we must be talking about humans, though this is not stated. I’m giving an example of an assumption which must be made to make sense. So it is with the word “kill”.

After the ten commandments were given, the Israelites under Moses, Gideon and many other leaders fought and killed many many people. Elijah killed the priests of Baal, Saul and David and many others of God’s anointed kings killed hundreds and thousands of their enemies, and did so by the clear instruction of God. In fact, Samuel got angry with King Saul because he had disobeyed and had not killed the king of the enemy he was fighting as he was ordered. All this happened many years after the commandments were given, so it appears clear that the word kill in the 6th commandment means murder, whether for money, gain, revenge whatever.

The bible tells us before David became one of the greatest kings of Israel, the women in the streets sang, “Saul has killed his thousands, but David, his tens of thousands” But, when David ordered his own man, Uriah the Hittite, to be sent to the front line so he would be killed in battle, just so that he (David) could have his wife Bathsheba (the future mother of Solomon) God punished David, as this was an entirely different thing. He was in effect murdering Uriah.

I am not advocating violence as a cure all, no way. But sometimes it is not only acceptable, but necessary. With respect, you have rather avoided answering the matter of Christ’s cleansing of the temple with a scourge and just saying no-one was hit is simply sticking one’s head in the sand. That was an act of violence by Our Lord and it was absolutely correct, absolutely right, absolutely necessary, and done very openly and bravely, which meant that standing up for his belief made him a target for his enemies. We need to stand up and be counted as Christians!

 

[HickmanJosh]

Sorry about the comment i made in my first statement, i don’t even know why i said “Even if you and your family are being killed”. i Guess i was just trying to stress that we are all brothers and sisters and that it would be nearly impossible for me to even want to kill a brother/sister. But yes it is indeed necessary to act out of self defense. And i just want to restate that by killing someone you are denying them any chance of redemption. So if you kill a mass murder you are in effect condemning them to hell. That being said you are correct, our families and rights must be defended.

As for Jesus’s cleansing of the temple i think he was trying to set an example. Act against what is unjust, in a proportional manner and as God i think He was the best Judge of how mush force to use and i guess if anyone did get hurt they ether deserved it or it was an accident. But as for people like Hitler and Tiller, what would a proportional response be, whose going to chose?

And you are right we do need to stand up and be counted. if we don’t stand up who will?

HickmanJosh

 

[Ghoti]

To HickmanJosh:

So are you saying, in effect, that it was immoral for France, the UK, Canada, the US, etc to go to war against Nazi Germany? That, since they were the only ones attacked, the only nations that had a moral right to fight (in self-defence) were Poland and perhaps Czechoslovakia?

And if it is moral to go to war – if the war is just – why is it only moral to kill the poor SOB on the battlefield but not the nutjob who sent him there? Why is it OK to shoot Korporal Fritz and Soldat Hans and Feldwebel Rolf, who, like me, are following the orders of their superiors, but am not allowed to shoot Uncle Adolf, who is issuing these orders, and sending these men to either their death or mine?

As far as I am concerned, your “worthiness” as a target (for want of a better term) in war is in direct proportion to your authority in waging it. In other words: Buck Private Hans Schmidt: waaaaaayyyyy down the list. Adolf Hitler: Should’ve had Fat Man and Little Boy administered to him by his proctologist.

 

[HickmanJosh]

Brittan and to commonwealth of nations where part pf a just war because when Hitler Attacked Poland and Czechoslovakia he broke international law and he simply ignored several warnings made by Britten against making an attack. And i think America should have been right in there as soon as France fell.

why is it only moral to kill the poor SOB on the battlefield but not the nutjob who sent him there?

        well science the leaders have broken international law they have to face up to International criminal courts like the Hague and The Nuremberg Trials. The Army dudes that actually attack have to be stopped because they are the most immediate threat to the defending nation. Now i say stopped because you don't necessarily have to Kill an army to stop it.  IE you can surround it and force it to surrender.

Uncle Adolf, as for him specifically if he was assassinated at the start of the war then Germany might just have defeated Britain and Russia. But science he was the nut job he was and very few in Germany dared question him. The Brits (who had infarct prepared an assassination attempt) decided not kill him because they figured he would bring a faster end to the war alive then dead. Even if he was assassinated do you think that would have stopped the other Nazis involved in the Holocaust? But the allies should have been more sportive of Von Stauffenberg and should have kicked that noob Nevil Chamberlain out of Britain for helping the Nazis when there was a perfectly good chance to stop the Nazis then and there (Czechoslovakia spring 1939).

As for Proportionality the allied effort to stop German production was insane, carpet bombing major cites! You know how many civilians died in the Dresden Bombing campaign alone? Was there any other way? maybe not but the allied leaders where acting a bit to much like those of the Luftwaffe.

  Now in a modern war is is very unlikely to happen, laser guided bombs and such but proportionality is a big question. Just look at the war Israel Just had with Gaza, The Hamas militants where firing rockets into Israel so the IDF (Israeli Defense Force), launched an attack into Gaza to root them out. In the process they killed some 1200 people, blew up a couple thousand houses and violated a lot of International laws. Israel lost Like 13 people. Is this Proportional? i mean sure Israel was getting bombed but did that give them the right to launch such a massive military operation?  same question for the wars in Sri Lanka and Pakistan.

a just war is an interesting concept but who is going to decide proportionality? And i am sure that the dudes who started the crusades thought they where a just war.

I like history:D

HickmanJosh

 

[Jimmytwoguns]

HickmanJosh, without sounding patronising, I think you’re honesty and principles are to be highly applauded, understand the point you make and largely agree.

However, what I would say is, when it comes to war it’s hard to rationalise things. In war, what matters is winning, and winning with as little cost to your side or position as possible.

I completely agree, the allied carpet bombing of Dresden was dreadful (America dropping two atomic bombs on Japan was worse, and now the Israelis are way over the top!) but war is war and WW2 was against Hitler and his attempt to enforce nazism throughout the world, to complete his “final solution”, i.e. exterminating all the Jews, plus kill Catholics, Christians, the list goes on.

Sorry to say, but it’s a fact, whatever the reasons, fear, greed, hate, the German people did not stand up to this small and utterly corrupt evil regime, made up of animals and perverts like Hitler and those who assisted him; Himmler, Goering, Goebbels etc, and Germans stood in their tens of thousands screaming “Sieg Heil” as the Jews were beaten, starved and rotted in the ghettos, then gassed later.

When it comes to war, the gloves are off, and you are out to win.

Taking out Hitler, and his like at an early stage would have saved the death of millions of Russians (over 40 million died in world war 2) Jews, British, Americans, French, Italians … and also Germans.

God bless,

JTG’S

 

[HickmanJosh]

Indeed as the old saying goes War can be Hell. But i also think war is sometimes necessary for change. WW2 in all its gruesomeness showed the world just how evil civilized people can be. The Holocaust was terrible. some estimates put the tole up to 17 million people killed in just the camps. That being said WW2 highlighted big problems in international diplomacy. The UN was born out of the ashes of the league of nations. The UN has united The world and saved the us from countless wars. Still sometimes the change can take a while to be realized. When the two superpowers faced each other after the defeat of the Nazis the world was divided on a political and ideological line. now that that line is gone the world is a much better place.

But i think that the conduct of war should reflect the ideologues of those involved. WW2 was not such an instance, the war crimes of the allies where frighteningly similar to SOME of thous of the Axis, (war rape, bombing of cites, treatment of prisoners). If we start acting like anything goes just because we are at war then we will soon find we are more like our enemies than we will ever want to admit.

        The Nazis where very good at disguising there real intentions. if anyone dared speek of the camps or negatively about the war they would often end up with a bullet in there heads.

just one more thing, the German invasion indirectly caused the collapse of the soviet union forty years later. all the economic and civil damage where hard to repair, even worse all of those people that died couldn’t be replaced, and now because the USSR is gone now we just have to worry about the Chines.

war can be necessary for change but that still doesn’t make it any more justifiable.

St Thomas 's just war also advocates proportional and responsible conduct during war.

i fear we might be geting slightly off topic.
HickmanJosh

 

[learningtheway]

Whether or not you think he’s a hypocrite, what Eisenhower said during his farewell address to the nation stands true to this day.

“The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.”

When somebody like Adolf Hitler comes into power, evil men like that need to be taken care of.

 

[distracted]

I’m with you there Distracted.

thanks for that…

despite the fact that i went off on a serious rabbit trail… :hypno:
not sure how i got to thinking about homosexuality…

i read this really weird book recently (maybe that is why)…

this guy named Lynn Harris wrote his memoirs… about being “gay and black” I didn’t know the guy was REALLY gay when i 1st started reaidng it - or gay at all at the very 1st… and thought that, becasue the 1st part of the bk sounded OK, maybe he repented …? But the bk got worse & worse and he even had this reliigous experience at a church… (non Cath) but still kept messing w/ men… .WEIRD!! How can you justify tht behavior / reconcile it with a relationship w/ Chirst… ??? but of course, his relationship w/ Christ wasn’t too deep, obviously…

anyway… i guess what this has to do with the topic is…
(well, one thing…)
they used to put people to death for this behavior… Now people are flaunting it… “proud” of it…

strange world…

seems God would allow death for things we humans would not… (??) or he used to???

 

[distracted]

Whether or not you think he’s a hypocrite, what Eisenhower said during his farewell address to the nation stands true to this day.

“The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.”

When somebody like Adolf Hitler comes into power, evil men like that need to be taken care of.

yeah i sometimes think some kind of list of criteria should be drawn up (by the Church, of course, someone we can trust)… to show that a person probably doesn’t have his soul anymore… has seared his conscience… is possessed…

YEs, i know this sounds odd… but what do you do in the case of someone like Hitler or Tiller… who are no different in my eyss… when they refuse to stop killing? I don’t like the idea of killing someone and sending him/her to eternity… which may be (probably is) hell… but on the other hand… why should we allow monsters (my assessment)… to do monstrous things??? and if their soul is gone, they are extremely unlikely to repent… and even if they did… society has a right to protect the innocent…

acting like Tiller’s being killed is no different than unborn babies being killed… which seems to be what some are saying… is saying we don’t think what guys like tiller are doing is REALLY bad/criminal… or not as bad as what the killer did (he broke the law)…?
and if it is “legal” for these kinds to kill, why is it not “ok” for others to do the same?? Seems there would be no line drawn… anarchy…

no one will think his neibhor is really being murdered until his own turn comes and someone deems HIS life “unworthy”… Then … oh HOW will he care!!!

 

[HickmanJosh]

Are you saying that Just because someone has done terrible things they have no soul??

Sure the things they do are monsterus but Killing them is just insane. Arrest them, throw them in Jail for the rest of there lives so they can think long and hard about what thieve done before having to actually having to face up to there atrocities. Give them a chance at redemption.

They have to be stopped, yes, as soon as possible but killing them is not what is best for anyone.

((they used to put people to death for this behavior… Now people are flaunting it… “proud” of it… ))

That was hundreds of years ago when the world was much more barbaric and simple, if you where to different you where cast out, killed or enslaved. We have come a long way from those times my friend. We must respect there choices and make our opinions clear where they are welcome.

HickmanJosh

 

[Athanasiy]

would you personally have attempted to kill Hitler if you knew you would get away with it??

Stalin , in my opinion is no better than Hitler.
And in my opinion even worst than Hitler.

And there were people behind Stalin and Hitler , who did their best to initiate the extermination as many as possible people and the ones who considered the World War as a profitable. They have no less guilt then Hitler.
I think if we would search the main murderer and the ones who is most guilty , then the chain would lead , not only to Hitler and his surrounding.
I think we probably , wouldn’t find who was the ‘’ Hitler’s mustache ‘’ , and what kind of people were behind the curtain.

 

[40_number]

I think that’s Hollywood hype? I do read a lot of history I’ve never heard that Col Von Stauffenberg who BTW was Catholic had anything to do with the Allies.

He was there to take out THE LEADER! Those coward Nazi Generals should have done that a long time ago but hey they were living large.

Just like those North Korean coward Generals today they don’t take out Dear Leader because they’re living large.

Fair comment and good analogy to modern problems in society…

 

[abukamoon]

This is a rather ignorant question.

If it is moral for an allied soldier to kill an axis soldier, how would it be wrong to kill the politician (the real cause of all the killing)?

There is a strange idea among many people that soldiers are to be targeted in war, but not the politicians who send them. I think just the opposite is true. Why fight an army when you can take out the leadership? Cut the head off of the snake.

Aren’t the lives of the soldiers worth at least as much as the criminal who sends them out to kill and be killed?

 

[distracted]

((they used to put people to death for this behavior… Now people are flaunting it… “proud” of it… ))

That was hundreds of years ago when the world was much more barbaric and simple, if you where to different you where cast out, killed or enslaved. We have come a long way from those times my friend. We must respect there choices and make our opinions clear where they are welcome.

HickmanJosh

Guess i better make this clear: i don’t kill homosexuals or abortionists…

& don’t think society should use capital punishment on the former…

i was trying to make the point that God hates these sins… & how much he hates them…

Look @ Sodom & Gommorah - and tell me God doesn’t hate homosexual acts… and then also read Romans 1…

we’ve come a long way?

Yeah, right… we’ve become a bunch of animals… any sexual behavior goes… We must be open minded… Oh please… so open minded our brains have fallen out…

did you go to that one thread about Jesus calling people names… ?

he called people hypocrites, vipers, liars, and dogs and swine…

but of course, we are better than that these days, aren’t we?? We know better than Jesus who lived so way back in them old old primitive days…

 

[distracted]

This is a rather ignorant question.

exactly… makes no sense… and neither does it make sense to say that such tactics (as some tried in WWII to get rid of hitler)… should not also be employed in the war against the unborn.

someone said legalized abortion is not a war… NOT war!!!

Well, than why are millions dying… mutilated… without even anasthetic???

more importantly: How woudl YOU feel if the abortion machine was turned on YOU???

Yes, things look a little different when it is OUR lives that are involved… but since its just some unwanted child of some probably welfare recipient who isn’t married … well, that’s a different sotry… to that many just seem to say… “Well, too bad but whatever… Where’s that remote so i can watch TV? Ho hummm…”.

 

[distracted]

Are you saying that Just because someone has done terrible things they have no soul??

Sure the things they do are monsterus but Killing them is just insane. sh

if you are saying killing Hitler or Stalin was insane, i guess i’ll just have to give up any further discussion w/ you…

you are entitled to your opinion but i Totally do not agree and don’t see that there is any further need of wasting my time and yours…

i will say this, though: if someone like Hitler or Stalin was trying to kill your loved ones… and you had the means to stop him by killing him… well,

 

[HickmanJosh]

This is a rather ignorant question.

If it is moral for an allied soldier to kill an axis soldier, how would it be wrong to kill the politician (the real cause of all the killing)?

There is a strange idea among many people that soldiers are to be targeted in war, but not the politicians who send them. I think just the opposite is true. Why fight an army when you can take out the leadership? Cut the head off of the snake.

Aren’t the lives of the soldiers worth at least as much as the criminal who sends them out to kill and be killed?

Whose to say another leader wont rise up and take the other leaders place.

let me give you a scenario, ok lets say your Stalin in Russia, July 1941, what is the bigger threat, the nutjob in Berlin or 3,000,000 German solders advancing ever deeper into Soviet Russia? Even if you did kill Hitler you would have no assurance whatsoever that those 3,000,000 would stop just because uncle Adolf is dead.

I understand your point that there is a chance that cutting off the head of the snake could save countless lives, so…why didn’t the Americans kill The Emperor in the Doolittle raid and fracture the empire before the war had got dirty? because that would mean nothing to the military minds other than they get a new leader.

Now as for situations like Von Stauffenberg presented, i think it would be acceptable as long as there was a good chance that the war could be brought to a swift and peaceful end, and maybe even a bonus of an incarcerated Hitler. If the Solution can Cause minimal casualties yet save millions i think it would be acceptable.

To Quote a Great Vulcan “the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one”

HickmanJosh

 

[HickmanJosh]

i will say this, though: if someone like Hitler or Stalin was trying to kill your loved ones… and you had the means to stop him by killing him… well,

if it was the only way to save innocent lives then yes it would be acceptable but i still think it should be the very, very last resort.

HickmanJosh

 

[wcknight]

There are guidelines for justifying a a war but there are none for justifying an assasination nor is there any for murder or doing violence to others.

We are on shaky ground when we start advocating murder or violence against abortionists. Although I consider them great sinners and totally misguided, I come short of calling them evil as in Hitler or Stalin.

The first thing that we need is to change the law to correspond proper morality by recognizing the rights of the unborn. Then we need to impose severe penalties on folks who perform abortions.

We should not be taking the law into our own hands, That can only lead to chaos and vigilante-ism.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

This thread title question is a no-brainer. It’s a plain case of just war doctrine. This guy exterminated 6 million Jews and millions of other Europeans and Allies. He threatened to take over the world with national socialism that was brutal and hell-bent on exterminating the weak, retarded, non-racially ‘pure,’ the aged, and the infirm. He was the closest thing to Satan we’ve seen in centuries. If one had the chance to assasinate him, duh! The wasn’t Ferdinand Marcos with a wife who had an oversized shoe collection, he was ADOLF HITLER!! No-brainer and a half…