Two answers:
- Taken as a straight question, probably. The allies evaluated the Nazis and determined that Hitler was so staggeringly incompetent at actually running the country and the war, and had such a lock on power, that getting rid of him would make defeating Germany infinitely more difficult, as more competent people took over. The exact motivations of the actual 1944 plot are still debated, but whatever you can say, the people involved were fiercely loyal to Germany and wanted to do it because they wanted good things for Germany in the war. That aspect of the question, weirdly enough, actually does have a strong parallel to the machinery of neo-fascism in America and Trump’s incredibly fortunate position at the head of it, hijacking and mismanaging and squandering all the more competent people’s effort that’s been invested in it up until this point.
- Taken as an obvious parallel with the attempted assassination of Trump, political violence in America is very clearly a bad thing at this point. We’re not in 1944; we’re at the stage of the Reichstag Fire and Enabling Act, when it’s still not clear which way it’s gonna go. If we were a couple years from now in 1944, when millions of civilians of the wrong designations had already died in the camps and millions more soliders and civilians in the concurrent hot war, then sure, knock yourself out. But trying to stop looming fascism through random political violence is like trying to stop a bear attack by covering yourself in steak sauce.
Precisely. Political violence right now is an escalation, not a deterrent.
One of the most important things to understand about political violence is that the state (in this case, the US law enforcement) have a monopoly on legitimate violence. We just saw it today: the SS can legally kill the assassin with no problem, and of course that makes sense. But the point is that political violence against the state, as opposed to fringe groups like neo-Nazis, is hugely asymmetrical. The state doesn’t face repression when they commit violence, for obvious reasons.
So political violence against the state (such as its electoral system and the candidates) is foolish and ineffective. An escalation, yes! It’s an ineffective strategy, as we saw back around the late 1800s and early 1900s.
Exactly, thanks for the well-articulated thought. It’s been frustrating to see how many people think the only thing wrong with the assassination attempt is that it didn’t succeed.
My conclusions as of some time ago were that it would be absolutely best for Biden if there were no assassination attempts on Trump. If one did happen, it would be absolutely best for everyone if Trump survived. (And from an election standpoint, absolutely best for Trump who would instantly clinch the win.) If Trump had died… I can’t predict that response, but it seems likely it’s good for no one.
I think Trump is a massive danger to everyone, but anyone who wanted him to perish here I fear is not thinking even one move ahead, and might, I daresay, want to reexamine their moral stance, as well. The right way to defeat him was at the ballot box, not this psycho nutjob move.
Taken as an obvious parallel with the attempted assassination of Trump, political violence in America is very clearly a bad thing at this point.
But trying to stop looming fascism through random political violence is like trying to stop a bear attack by covering yourself in steak sauce.
In my opinion, the issue isn’t that it was political violence, but it was (as you said) random political violence. Thoughtless and extreme political violence. What happens if Trump was assassinated? I propose that Trump would be replaced by a more competent career politician, more appealing to capital and to the closer of the Democrats. I think Trump is like Hitler in that they’re somewhat of outsiders to politics who understand popularity more than pragmatism, related to that first answer you gave. There’s no point to just cutting off the head of the hydra, the failed tactic of propaganda of the deed already demonstrated that after killing a lot of presidents, kings and police chiefs. The problem with the Republican Party is systematic, not that it’s being headed by Trump. (obviously this all may not be the worldview of the would-be assassin, I’m just explaining this from a non-Republican perspective)
But political violence as a broad umbrella goes well beyond this example and there’s not really any reason to leave it until it’s too late. I think it’s perfectly appropriate to have a Battle of Cable Street before the fascists get elected, and it (along with later '43 Group violence) worked. The BUF deteriorated due to forceful repression by ex-military antifascists. These are not just random acts of violence, but intentional, tactical violent resistance and then violent suppression of fascist movements. Non-violent methods are generally preferred by anti-fascists today for good reasons (easier to get mass involvement, more sustainable, etc.), but violent actions are a legitimate and effective part of the arsenal against fascism when used appropriately. Attempting an assassination of a state figurehead is not that.
Absolutely not. About half the German casualties of the war occurred after that event. And most of the bombing too. An unfathomable amount of suffering could have been prevented, if the assassination had been successful.
Stauffenberg tried to kill Hitler because he thought Hitler wasn’t effective. The war would have absolutely continued.
Wrong. Stauffenberg certainly wasn’t a model democrat. But he understood that the way was lost and that they had to come to some sort of resolution. Any deal Germany could have gotten would have been harsh but far better than total destruction.
not a model democrat
is doing some real heavy lifting there lol
deleted by creator
The uncomfortable truth is that for Nazism’s spell over the German people to be broken, it had to run its bloody course; it had to be seen to fail – utterly, completely and catastrophically. For all its heroism, Stauffenberg’s plot risked preventing that. So, while we applaud it, we should also applaud its failure.
So it’s OK that a couple if million people died because of some moral hazard argument? Yeah right.
I’m assuming you think a replacement to Hitler would have stopped the war. First, is that what you believe?
Second, would a more effective leader of Nazi Germany ultimately cause more deaths?
Anyone competent wouldn’t have fucking fought the russians and split their resources, they wouldn’t have probably even started a real war beyond the concessions other western governments were already totally fine with giving them. A competent person would’ve probably just started eating up colonialist imperialist doctrine abroad, as was socially acceptable, rather than trying to fight domestically.
Like, all of what america did.
At this point in the war they were already totally fucked, so anyone competent would’ve negotiated for peacetime. Whether or not that would’ve been better is up for debate, as germany is plenty full of nazis now and they probably would’ve been more full of nazis had they negotiated some sort of surrender, in which they probably would’ve had more control over their government in order to set it up longer term.
Probably though hitler dying sooner would’ve been good since it would’ve meant hitler died sooner. Which would’ve been awesome.
What a shit take.
Go ask the millions who died between 1944-1945 if they are glad the plot failed.
I don’t think it’s about moral hazard. If he was killed he would likely have been replaced by someone more competent, who would carry through the vision and potentially have a better chance of winning the war.
In 1944 there was no way in hell Germany could come back and win, and the allies had publicly declared they were not going to stop until there was an unconditional surrender. At best the german people would have “just” gotten a similar occupation as 1945 with less of their territory bombed to shit.
No.
Huh?
