My dear sister in Christ, You need to do a reality check .There was a “formal surrender”, however there was not a “total surrender”. I recently saw a program on the History Channel regarding the period after the end of WWII…and many Germans still fought against the Allies… the Werewolf groups of guerrilla fighters carried on for three years killing Allies and Germans as well.
That still doesn’t provide any basis for the contentions that killing Hitler would have prolonged the war or made him a martyr.
I’ve not seen the movie, so I don’t know if what you describe is meant to be from the movie, or from actual history. In actual history it was not a “skin-saving” attempt, at least not by most of the major players such as von Stauffenberg, who is quoted as having cited the Catholic principle of Natural Law in committing treason against the authorities he’d made oaths to.
Hmmm… That would eliminate the majority of national leaders! At what point do you draw the line?
Agreed. There were more rational and therefore more dangerous men that could have succeeded Hitler, if he had died. Heinrich Himmler, the head of the Schutzstaffel, ie. the elite corp of Nazi hardliners who were largely in charge of the concentration camps and the “racial purity” programs, was next in line to succeed as Fuehrer of the Reich, if Hitler had been killed, and since Himmler was a lot more calculating and rational, he’d probably have been able to clean up the mess that Hitler had made of the military… And no doubt, that Thousand-Year Reich would have become a grim reality…
That’s why there was the Valkyrie Protocol in place, in this particular case. Himmler wouldn’t have had the opportunity to rise to power; the military was to immediately arrest all senior Nazi leadership and outlaw the Nazi Party. They had the means to do so (the Nazi Party likely couldn’t have resisted a fully mobilized German Army, and it was part of the Valkyrie Protocol, approved by Hitler, that the SS would be disolved into the larger army and fall under military command). The plan fell apart, in large part due to Hitler surviving (the rumors of his survival made most of the Generals hesistate in implementing Operation Valkyrie), and it never got past the first stages.
As far as armed resistance goes, the line is drawn by the points I highlighted from the Catechism above. As for other forms of resistance, the Church does support non-violent resistance to illegitimate authorities and laws; for example I would not be considered wrong for resisting an order to hand out contraception. Such an order by the government would be illegal, since it transgresses Natural Law, even if the other aspects of the government (like collecting taxes to pay for road repairs) remained legitimate.
I wasn’t trying to make any point other than the fact that after the surrender…others kept fighting.
Yes, I know. The “government” surrenders and acknowledges that it ceases to exist, and orders its military to cease function, but it does not ultimately govern the actions of separate individuals.
Imagine. All the lives that would have been saved. All it would have taken is one brave person with a gun willing to go to hell for a heavenly cause.
It takes far more courage to act when the choices for action are repugnant, than to take no action and deny all responsibility for what happens. To make no decision at all is not to avoid responsibility; it is to endorse whatever decision is reached by others. It is meaningless to oppose a plan, however onerous the plan may be, if you offer no substitute course of action. Sticking your head in the sand does not absolve you from responsibility for what happens around you. Doing nothing is no solution to a moral dilemma but merely avoidance of a solution.
*Ethics... Dietrich BonhoefferBombs work immediately, and only do a little damage. Prayer takes longer, and does more damage. 40 days for life has closed more abortuaries than every bomb ever used against them.