Was the assassination attempt like that in Valkyrie morally justifiable?

[cam100]

After watching the movie Valkyrie, in which the Catholic Colonel Stauffenberg attempted to assassinate Hitler, I began thinking about the morality of such actions. Do you think this assassination attempt was morally justifiable? Does anyone know of any authoritative Catholic resources on this subject?

 

[Justin_A]

There is the “Just war doctrine”. It talks about the conditions of a “Just war”. And I think that the attempt on Hitlers life was justifiable
www.ewtn.com.

Here is a link to the Just war doctrine.
It states the reasons why a war, such as WW2, was justifiable.

 

[LilyM]

I would think alternatives to assassination would have to have been tried and have failed first. I don’t know whether they were in Hitler’s case.

 

[Eucharisted]

I don’t think it was justifable. Certainly it would seem justifible because Hitler was evil, but you cannot fight evil with evil, nor do evil to bring a greater good. And prayer is the greatest weapon in the world - even greater than a bomb.

 

[Justin_A]

With Hitlers bodyguards around 24-7 I don’t think capture was possible. Other than that though, I don’t know if anything els was tried.

 

[Justin_A]

I don’t think it was justifable. Certainly it would seem justifible because Hitler was evil, but you cannot fight evil with evil, nor do evil to bring a greater good. And prayer is the greatest weapon in the world - even greater than a bomb.

I disagree because it was Hitlers religion (Nazism) that he was trying to spread, as well as his power.
I don’t think he would have converted at any point.

 

[thistle]

After watching the movie Valkyrie, in which the Catholic Colonel Stauffenberg attempted to assassinate Hitler, I began thinking about the morality of such actions. Do you think this assassination attempt was morally justifiable? Does anyone know of any authoritative Catholic resources on this subject?

Hitler was militarily incompetent. His military leaders would have been glad to see him dead. However with him out of the way who knows how the war would have ended. I think at the very least it would have been prolonged and more people killed.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

After watching the movie Valkyrie, in which the Catholic Colonel Stauffenberg attempted to assassinate Hitler, I began thinking about the morality of such actions. Do you think this assassination attempt was morally justifiable? Does anyone know of any authoritative Catholic resources on this subject?

Assassination can be morally justifiable - even though it is not something to do lightly. I think it’s a pity Hitler was not killed or incapacitated before he became Chancellor of Germany.​

**A question now is whether Robert Mugabe should be assassinated. It may be the only way out of the utterly ruinous condition to which he has brought Zimbabwe. **

**Unfortunately, the Gospel gives no guidance on matters of politics such as these; so we are left to do our best. FWIW, several Protestant Churches have theological traditions allowing tyrannicide (which seems to be what we are discussing), as does the CC. **

 

[apromisemade]

Assassination

can be **morally justifiable - even though it is not something to do lightly. I think it’s a pity Hitler was not killed or incapacitated before he became Chancellor of Germany\

Indeed, it’s just goes to show how much damage one person can do when too much power is concentrated in their hands. I would imagine that if the Church makes allocations for the death penalty, assasination attempts would be no different. And I, for one, would say Hitlers assasination attempt was certainly justified, given the threat he possed to inconcievable numbers of people.

There are some who would point to the Holocaust and say “If God was so great, why would he allow that to happen?” But ultimately, it was not a bolt of lightening, a single assassination, or a grand crusade that struck Hitler down, but his own hand. The war would not have ended without the valor of the Allies, but the one who killed Hitler was Hitler. He fell victim, you could say, to the same maddness that created the death camps. It is as Christ said…

“Let the dead bury the dead”**

 

[LilyM]

Hitler was militarily incompetent. His military leaders would have been glad to see him dead. However with him out of the way who knows how the war would have ended. I think at the very least it would have been prolonged and more people killed.

It’s interesting that even at the end of the war Hitler had enough sway over many of his staff to persuade them to commit suicide along with him in the bunker (including Goebbels and his entire family, if I remember correctly).

They seem to have been awfully dependent on and subservient to him in that sense. In which case the Germans could’ve collapsed a whole lot more quickly if he had been eliminated early on.

Of course if he had been killed by someone else as opposed to committing suicied, there’d be the martyrdom factor which would make it likely to have dragged things on longer.

As for Mugabe - the man is in his 80s. Can’t be too long before his reign naturally ends. Look at Castro.

 

[Ghosty]

For me the question isn’t whether or not such an attempt was justified, but rather if not making such an attempt would be justified.

We’re talking about a man who was directly responsible for genocide, and maintained a firm grip on power throughout his reign.

Men like von Stauffenberg faced the question of whether or not it was morally justifiable to not attempt such a move, because they knew that tens of thousands of people were being murdered in concentration camps every day because of the orders of this man. Would it be morally responsible for them, when having the means to act, to do nothing?

Obviously this isn’t exactly the same as killing someone who has a gun to someone’s head, but I think the same principle of stopping an immediate threat to innocent life applies. For people like von Stauffenberg it wasn’t a question of murder, but of justifiable war-time killing, and a targeted one at that.

Remember also that killing Hitler was only one part of the plan; they needed him out of the way so they could put Protocol Valkyrie into effect (for those who aren’t familiar with the situation, Nazi Germany had a protocol for the military to take control in the event of the death of Nazi leadership, and many of the military leadership were anti-Nazi and would have stopped the Nazi policies and likely even the European war). The plan was to stop the entire Nazi program by putting the Nazi leadership under military arrest after the death of Hitler; it wasn’t just a matter of vengence killing of one man, but a German resistance effort against the Nazi Party. Such resistance efforts are indeed justified by the “just war” doctrine (it was on this principle that the devout Catholic von Stauffenberg decided to act).

So, in short, it wasn’t a “murder attempt”, but a legitimate military assault on an illegitimate, and genocidal, power, with the death of Hitler being only the first step in the resistance effort. It was a longshot, but at the time they were reasonably convinced at its chance for success. It’s a shame that it was such a failure, IMO; those men were very noble and brave.

Just my thoughts.

Peace and God bless!

 

[cam100]

There is the “Just war doctrine”. It talks about the conditions of a “Just war”. And I think that the attempt on Hitlers life was justifiable
www.ewtn.com.

Here is a link to the Just war doctrine.
It states the reasons why a war, such as WW2, was justifiable.

I know there is an allowance for a just war, but how does that relate to the assassination of the leader of one’s own country? According to this document (ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/JUSTWAR.HTM)), only a legitimate authority can initiate a war. Would Staffenberg qualify?

 

[Justin_A]

For me the question isn’t whether or not such an attempt was justified, but rather if not making such an attempt would be justified.

We’re talking about a man who was directly responsible for genocide, and maintained a firm grip on power throughout his reign.

Men like von Stauffenberg faced the question of whether or not it was morally justifiable to not attempt such a move, because they knew that tens of thousands of people were being murdered in concentration camps every day because of the orders of this man. Would it be morally responsible for them, when having the means to act, to do nothing?

Obviously this isn’t exactly the same as killing someone who has a gun to someone’s head, but I think the same principle of stopping an immediate threat to innocent life applies. For people like von Stauffenberg it wasn’t a question of murder, but of justifiable war-time killing, and a targeted one at that.

Remember also that killing Hitler was only one part of the plan; they needed him out of the way so they could put Protocol Valkyrie into effect (for those who aren’t familiar with the situation, Nazi Germany had a protocol for the military to take control in the event of the death of Nazi leadership, and many of the military leadership were anti-Nazi and would have stopped the Nazi policies and likely even the European war). The plan was to stop the entire Nazi program by putting the Nazi leadership under military arrest after the death of Hitler; it wasn’t just a matter of vengence killing of one man, but a German resistance effort against the Nazi Party. Such resistance efforts are indeed justified by the “just war” doctrine (it was on this principle that the devout Catholic von Stauffenberg decided to act).

So, in short, it wasn’t a “murder attempt”, but a legitimate military assault on an illegitimate, and genocidal, power, with the death of Hitler being only the first step in the resistance effort. It was a longshot, but at the time they were reasonably convinced at its chance for success. It’s a shame that it was such a failure, IMO; those men were very noble and brave.

Just my thoughts.

Peace and God bless!

I think that the above quote just about raps things up.
The attempt on Hitlers life was not another mans means of gaining power, and it wasn’t just an assassination or murder attempt. Under the JUST WAR DOCTRINE, it was a lagitamate way of saving thousands upon thousands of inasent people.
And the people that tried to kill Hitler were basically rebels on the inside and didn’t like what they as a nation had been doing. Hitler wasn’t a leader to them, he was the same monster the all of Europe saw him as.

 

[Justin_A]

I know there is an allowance for a just war, but how does that relate to the assassination of the leader of one’s own country? According to this document (ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/JUSTWAR.HTM)), only a legitimate authority can initiate a war. Would Staffenberg qualify?

And as to this, the war was already under way, they were trying to end it. And if you’re referring to after the death of Hitler, the military would have taken over the politics of Germany.
Staffenberg would have then been a legitimate authority.

 

[Ignatius]

I think at the very least it would have been prolonged and more people killed.

Based on what? There is absolutely nothing to indicate that.

The actual fact is, as soon as Hitler died (by his own choice), there was a total surrender.

 

[LilyM]

Based on what? There is absolutely nothing to indicate that.

The actual fact is, as soon as Hitler died (by his own choice), there was a total surrender.

Like I said earlier, there’s a big difference between the effect a suicide would have as opposed to assassination.

Assassination would make Hitler look like a martyr, an object of sympathy to his followers, as it did those early Christians who were killed by the Romans. So it could well have strengthened the resolve of his followers to fight on, as it strengthened the early Christians in their faith.

 

[jkiernan56]

For me the question isn’t whether or not such an attempt was justified, but rather if not making such an attempt would be justified.

We’re talking about a man who was directly responsible for genocide, and maintained a firm grip on power throughout his reign.

Men like von Stauffenberg faced the question of whether or not it was morally justifiable to not attempt such a move, because they knew that tens of thousands of people were being murdered in concentration camps every day because of the orders of this man. Would it be morally responsible for them, when having the means to act, to do nothing?

Obviously this isn’t exactly the same as killing someone who has a gun to someone’s head, but I think the same principle of stopping an immediate threat to innocent life applies. For people like von Stauffenberg it wasn’t a question of murder, but of justifiable war-time killing, and a targeted one at that.

Remember also that killing Hitler was only one part of the plan; they needed him out of the way so they could put Protocol Valkyrie into effect (for those who aren’t familiar with the situation, Nazi Germany had a protocol for the military to take control in the event of the death of Nazi leadership, and many of the military leadership were anti-Nazi and would have stopped the Nazi policies and likely even the European war). The plan was to stop the entire Nazi program by putting the Nazi leadership under military arrest after the death of Hitler; it wasn’t just a matter of vengence killing of one man, but a German resistance effort against the Nazi Party. Such resistance efforts are indeed justified by the “just war” doctrine (it was on this principle that the devout Catholic von Stauffenberg decided to act).

So, in short, it wasn’t a “murder attempt”, but a legitimate military assault on an illegitimate, and genocidal, power, with the death of Hitler being only the first step in the resistance effort. It was a longshot, but at the time they were reasonably convinced at its chance for success. It’s a shame that it was such a failure, IMO; those men were very noble and brave.

Just my thoughts.

Peace and God bless!

Would this same logic hold TRUE for killing doctors who perform abortions? I don’t think so.

 

[Ghosty]

Would this same logic hold TRUE for killing doctors who perform abortions? I don’t think so.

In my mind that’s an open question, but what I’m talking about has more to do with the Church’s teaching on armed resistance against illegitimate governments. From the Catechism:

2243 Armed *resistance *to oppression by political authority is not legitimate, unless all the following conditions are met: 1) there is certain, grave, and prolonged violation of fundamental rights; 2) all other means of redress have been exhausted; 3) such resistance will not provoke worse disorders; 4) there is well-founded hope of success; and 5) it is impossible reasonably to foresee any better solution.

Point by point:

1 ) The violation of fundamental human rights was certain (it was part of the Nazi ideology), grave (genocide and murder of all who voice opposition to Nazi policies and belief), and prolonged (it had been nearly a decade of such abuse).

2 ) All dissention was met with the murder of not only the dissenter, but often that of his family as well. At the bare minimum torture and death threats were used. After the Nazis seized total power in the 30s there was no longer any other means for redress besides out-and-out war, as can be seen by World War II itself.

3 ) The resistance couldn’t provoke worse disorders; they were already at their absolute worst. Organized genocide and oppression of almost all basic human rights was the day-to-day policy of the Nazi power. Total societal collapse would actually have been a step up from that state, since people would once again have the ability to freely organize, and systematic genocide would be impossible.

4 ) The German resistance as led by these particular men was not a rag-tag group, but actually had a military protocol to implement in the event of Nazi collapse (a protocol approved and signed by Hitler, no less, though obviously he didn’t know how it would be utilized). All they had to do, so they believed (and with good reason, since it was the official, above-the-board military standing policy), was make the call that Hitler was dead, and the military would move to seize power. They had the support of top generals to do so, assuming the death of Hitler; unfortunately he survived the attack and the Valkyrie protocol could not be properly enacted (though the resistance still tried to push the generals to act, and some did in fact move their troops for the take-over).

5 ) The only “better solution” was a prolonged war with many more innocents being killed. They didn’t know how much longer the war would last and the Nazis would maintain control, but at best estimate it would still be a year or more. In that time potentially millions more would be killed, not only in battle but in the concentration camps (and this makes these men even more noble, IMO, since they cited the ongoing genocide as one of the major reasons for acting; it wasn’t just a fear that Germany would lose the war dishonorably under Nazi rule). That would be the “best case scenario” if they didn’t act, and that best case scenario was not better than the one they had set up.

So based on these elements I’d say that the German resistance was a perfect example of the legitimate right of the people to violently combat an illegitimate government. Again, it wasn’t just a “Hitler’s bad, let’s kill him” attack, it was a “we are making war against the illegitimate Nazi party, and step one of the uprising is a direct assault on Hitler so we can enact the Valkyrie protocol and arrest the other Nazis”).

If it was just about murdering Hitler there would be more questions, but it’s pretty clear that he was essentially a military target as part of a much, much larger plan of resistance.

Peace and God bless!

 

[cam100]

Point by point:

1 ) The violation of fundamental human rights was certain (it was part of the Nazi ideology), grave (genocide and murder of all who voice opposition to Nazi policies and belief), and prolonged (it had been nearly a decade of such abuse).

2 ) All dissention was met with the murder of not only the dissenter, but often that of his family as well. At the bare minimum torture and death threats were used. After the Nazis seized total power in the 30s there was no longer any other means for redress besides out-and-out war, as can be seen by World War II itself.

3 ) The resistance couldn’t provoke worse disorders; they were already at their absolute worst. Organized genocide and oppression of almost all basic human rights was the day-to-day policy of the Nazi power. Total societal collapse would actually have been a step up from that state, since people would once again have the ability to freely organize, and systematic genocide would be impossible.

4 ) The German resistance as led by these particular men was not a rag-tag group, but actually had a military protocol to implement in the event of Nazi collapse (a protocol approved and signed by Hitler, no less, though obviously he didn’t know how it would be utilized). All they had to do, so they believed (and with good reason, since it was the official, above-the-board military standing policy), was make the call that Hitler was dead, and the military would move to seize power. They had the support of top generals to do so, assuming the death of Hitler; unfortunately he survived the attack and the Valkyrie protocol could not be properly enacted (though the resistance still tried to push the generals to act, and some did in fact move their troops for the take-over).

5 ) The only “better solution” was a prolonged war with many more innocents being killed. They didn’t know how much longer the war would last and the Nazis would maintain control, but at best estimate it would still be a year or more. In that time potentially millions more would be killed, not only in battle but in the concentration camps (and this makes these men even more noble, IMO, since they cited the ongoing genocide as one of the major reasons for acting; it wasn’t just a fear that Germany would lose the war dishonorably under Nazi rule). That would be the “best case scenario” if they didn’t act, and that best case scenario was not better than the one they had set up.

So based on these elements I’d say that the German resistance was a perfect example of the legitimate right of the people to violently combat an illegitimate government. Again, it wasn’t just a “Hitler’s bad, let’s kill him” attack, it was a “we are making war against the illegitimate Nazi party, and step one of the uprising is a direct assault on Hitler so we can enact the Valkyrie protocol and arrest the other Nazis”).

If it was just about murdering Hitler there would be more questions, but it’s pretty clear that he was essentially a military target as part of a much, much larger plan of resistance.

Peace and God bless!

Thanks for the well-formed, answer, Ghosty. I see that no one has tried to disagree with your logic.

 

[isw49017]

After watching the movie Valkyrie, in which the Catholic Colonel Stauffenberg attempted to assassinate Hitler, I began thinking about the morality of such actions. Do you think this assassination attempt was morally justifiable? Does anyone know of any authoritative Catholic resources on this subject?

We as Catholics have the duty to examine all possibilities in fighting evil. Could Hitler have been stopped short of assassination? Historians doubt this. The taking of a human life is never desirable, but in some cases it may be justified in order to protect society. This I believe is the teaching of the Church on capital punishment.

What about the others in the room at the time of the explosion? Was taking their lives (their own innocence or culpability cannot be known) justified? Another hard consideration to ponder. Could another means i.e. poison, sniper, etc… have been used in order to minimize the loss of life? We can only surmise that Col Stauffenberg either exhausted all possibilities, or followed the logic that an an explosive device could solve any problem (I am not sure of the exact words that were used in the movie.). In any event, he followed his (supposedly well-formed) conscience. To go against your conscience is a sin right?