Treason or Resistance?

[DAVOUT]

The German officers had an additionnal problem with this issue : they had sworn obedience and fidelity to the person of Hitler. This led them to execute orders they would never have accepted under their traditional military code of honor.

I see the attempt of assassination of Hitler as their only mean to free themselves from this evil oath.

I have no doubt that had they succeed, they would have made any effort to end the war with the West.

[orange]

Originally posted by BeBro
Hm not always - eg. in self defense

Even in self defense, you should only kill if it's absolutely necessary. But I was going in the context he said it...as if you could 'find' a moral way to dispose of Hitler.

[Az]

Orange: so, If the only way to kill Hitler was to throw a 2000lb bomb that would also damage the nearby nursery, that would kill a couple of hundred of babies, you wouldn't do it?

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by Azazel
Orange: so, If the only way to kill Hitler was to throw a 2000lb bomb that would also damage the nearby nursery, that would kill a couple of hundred of babies, you wouldn't do it?

I would say that our maps had not been updated

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Azazel
the ethical value of any action should be a result of an ethical cost/benefit analysis of the result of such action. Assassinating Hitler would probably severly hamper the Nazi war machine, which is good, and therefore such an action would be ethical.

No, without Hitler, the German war machine would have funtioned MUCH more effectively

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Well, killing Hitler would have been fine, as long as a moral means was found. Planting a bomb in a meeting that Hitler happened to be attending was not moral, because of the risk of killing other people who may have done nothing wrong.

You provide no source. You PROVIDE NOTHING! And yet you want to destroy Hitler... you criminal...



I got to say it first this time!

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Azazel
Orange: so, If the only way to kill Hitler was to throw a 2000lb bomb that would also damage the nearby nursery, that would kill a couple of hundred of babies, you wouldn't do it?

Well, since the assasination (attempt) took place in a bunker of the "Wolfsschanze" there is a good chance that no babies were nearby

To David: do you see his staff in the HQ as "people who may have done nothing wrong."? I can understand that one has to be cautious with definitions of innocent/guilty, but such high-level personnel seems not to consist only of willingless puppets....

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by skywalker


No, without Hitler, the German war machine would have funtioned MUCH more effectively

In july 44, the German war machine was lacking of raw materials and ... oil, and that could not be overcome. Most of bad decisions made by Hitler cannot be reversed, and the air superiority was on the allied side and cannot be challenged.

[Az]

No, without Hitler, the German war machine would have funtioned MUCH more effectively

I already adressed this. Hitler was one of the leading factors of that war machine rolling in the first place.

BeBro: just using a Hyperbole to prove my point.

[Kirnwaffen]

The ethics involved have little to do with whether or not the act is considered a crime. If German law at the time considered the assassination of the chancellor an act of treason, then what the man did was treason. Doesn't matter if he was right or wrong.

Question: what have assassins or attempted assassins in the United States been tried for?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Azazel
the ethical value of any action should be a result of an ethical cost/benefit analysis of the result of such action. Assassinating Hitler would probably severly hamper the Nazi war machine, which is good, and therefore such an action would be ethical.

In his memoirs, Friedrich von Mellenthin made an interesting point that assassinating Hitler would have been a disaster for Germans and the allies both had it suceeded.

Generally, the ideas were that there were too many high-level leaders (Göring, Himmler, Bormann all had direct command of troops) who would have gone into hypermadman mode to become Hitler's successor. von Mellenthin's point was that the army and field forces would have still been in place, coordination between Luftwaffe field divisions, Waffen SS and the army couldn't have been any worse, and settling the succession issue would have led to the collapsing of two of the three political armed forces, with all equipment and logistical support going to the eventual winner. The regular army was last in the mix before, and would continue to be. If you figure the likely winners to be the SS, a concentration of resources to the SS at the expense of generally inept organizations like the Volkssturm and the felddivisionen of the Luftwaffe wouldn't have benefitted anyone.

While they were all subordinates sworn the follow Hitler, the big three *******s had to accept dilution of resources that each of them wanted.

As far as the "morality" of it, certainly it was treason. That's only a bad thing from the point of view of the government. The leaders (and followers) of the American revolution were all traitors, and had George III had his way, many would have danced from the gibbet, hence Franklin's saying that "If we don't all hang together, we shall all surely hang separately."

Kirnwaffen - assassination, attempted assassination, or conspiracy to assassinate the President is a distinct criminal offense under the United States Code, as is advocacy of assassinating the President or conspiracies to carry out such an assassination.

[David Floyd]

orange,

It is moral to help someone else. It is moral to act in the defense of another.

Azazel,

so, If the only way to kill Hitler was to throw a 2000lb bomb that would also damage the nearby nursery, that would kill a couple of hundred of babies, you wouldn't do it?

Not me.

BeBro,

To David: do you see his staff in the HQ as "people who may have done nothing wrong."? I can understand that one has to be cautious with definitions of innocent/guilty, but such high-level personnel seems not to consist only of willingless puppets....

The following people were at the table when the bomb went off:

Adolf Hitler
General Adolf Heusinger
General Günther Korten
Oberst Heinz Brandt
General Karl Bodenschatz
General Rudolf Schmundt
Oberstleutnant Heinrich Borgman
Admiral Jesco von Puttkamer
Stenographer Berger
Kapitän zur See Kurt Assmann
General Walther Scherff
General Walther Buhle
Admiral Hans Voss
SS-Gruppenführer Hermann Fegelein
Oberst Nicholaus von Below
SS-Hauptsturmführer Otto Günsche
Stenographer Dr Kurt Hagen
Oberstleutnant Leo von John
Major Herbert Büchs
Oberstleutnant Weizenegger
von Sonnleithner
General Walther Warlimont
General Alfred Jodl
Generalfeldmarschall Wilhelm Keitel

While some of these men were undoubtedly guilty of immoral acts, murder, etc., certainly some of them were innocent. I don't consider Keitel, for example, to be a war criminal.

[Gangerolf]

yeah and whaat about the poor stenographers

[Jaguar]

The stenographers certainly did not deserve to die, but neither did any of the people in the concentration camps.

If you kill 2 stenographers but save 100 people from being gassed, it's still a moral act.

[HershOstropoler]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat

Generally, the ideas were that there were too many high-level leaders (Göring, Himmler, Bormann all had direct command of troops) who would have gone into hypermadman mode to become Hitler's successor.

That's assuming Walküre going completely wrong with Hitler dead. As it ran very smoothly until news of Hitler being alive broke, I consider that quite implausible.