History

1891 readers

4 users here now

founded 4 years ago

MODERATORS

goranko@lemmy.ml

kixiQu@lemmy.ml

Should we be glad the 1944 July Plot to kill Hitler failed? (www.historyextra.com)

submitted 4 months ago by Five@slrpnk.net to c/history@lemmy.ml

19 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] mozz@mbin.grits.dev 42 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (3 children)

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.

[–] pennomi@lemmy.world 20 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Precisely. Political violence right now is an escalation, not a deterrent.

[–] comfy@lemmy.ml 2 points 4 months ago

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.

[–] AFKBRBChocolate@lemmy.world 8 points 4 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] beejjorgensen@lemmy.sdf.org 3 points 4 months ago

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.

[–] comfy@lemmy.ml 5 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

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.