Why Did Bonhoeffer Participate in the Plot to Kill Hitler?

A complex ethics

Nov 12, 2024

a picture of a man in a picture frame on a table — Photo by Jon Tyson on Unsplash

Dietrich Bonhoeffer's participation in the plot to assassinate Adolf Hitler represents a significant and complex chapter in his life, reflecting his evolving theological and ethical perspectives during a time of moral crisis in Nazi Germany. Bonhoeffer initially held nonviolent views. Still, as the Nazi regime intensified its oppressive policies, he became increasingly involved in resistance efforts, culminating in his participation in the conspiracy to kill Hitler. Bonhoeffer's involvement in the conspiracy began in earnest around 1939, as he became associated with various resistance circles that sought to overthrow the Nazi regime.

Before delving into the complex history and ethics behind this, I want to highlight how messy this period is. Many who use Bonhoeffer’s participation in the plot to kill Hitler do it as if this decision was entered into lightly or that it somehow signals a new universal norm for him in all times and places.

One need only look at the opening paragraph of Ethics to see that by the end of his life, any talk of moral absolutes in Bonhoeffer is gone. Yet, one should still act in the world responsibly in the world. And responsibility, as we talked about last week, is a solidarity with the world and its problems particularly to the victims of history. One cannot understand Bonhoeffer’s decision to participate in this plot absent that context.

I offer a brief review of some resources (see bibliography for more details) that help locate some of Bonhoeffer’s participation challenges.

Looking to the Resources: Lit Review

The conspiracy period marked a critical shift in Bonhoeffer’s understanding of ethics and the church's role in society. According to DeJonge, Bonhoeffer's participation in the conspiracy was characterized by a commitment to the principles of the "two kingdoms" theology, which posited a distinction between the spiritual authority of the church and the temporal authority of the state. However, as the situation in Germany deteriorated, Bonhoeffer's theological reflections led him to conclude that active resistance, including violence, could be justified in extreme circumstances (DeJonge, 2018).

The theological underpinnings of Bonhoeffer's decision to engage in the assassination plot are explored in depth by Barnett, who notes the tension between Bonhoeffer's earlier pacifist writings and his later acceptance of violence as a means of resistance. This apparent contradiction has generated significant scholarly debate as many grapple with the implications of Bonhoeffer's shift from a pacifist stance to one that endorsed tyrannicide. Barnett emphasizes that Bonhoeffer's involvement in the conspiracy was not merely a political act but was deeply rooted in his theological convictions about justice and the moral imperative to resist evil (Barnett, 2019).

O’Farrell further contextualizes Bonhoeffer's actions within a broader theological framework, arguing that his understanding of the "exception"—extraordinary moments that necessitate a departure from normative ethical behavior—was crucial in shaping his decision to participate in the plot against Hitler. Bonhoeffer viewed the assassination attempt as a necessary response to the unprecedented evil of the Nazi regime, suggesting that such extraordinary circumstances could warrant actions that would typically be considered unethical (O’Farrell, 2023).

This perspective aligns with Bonhoeffer's later writings, where he articulated a vision of Christian ethics that was responsive to the realities of suffering and injustice in the world. Despite his involvement in the conspiracy, Bonhoeffer's role was not as a primary architect of the plot but rather as a supporter of the resistance efforts led by others, including military officers disillusioned with Hitler's leadership. His theological insights and moral reasoning provided a spiritual foundation for those engaged in the conspiracy, emphasizing the need for courage and faith in the face of tyranny. Lovin highlights that Bonhoeffer's association with the plotters ultimately led to his arrest in 1943 and subsequent execution by the Nazis in 1945, marking a tragic end to his life but also solidifying his legacy as a martyr for justice and faith (Lovin, 2015).

The implications of Bonhoeffer's participation in the assassination plot extend beyond his immediate context, raising important questions about the nature of Christian ethics in times of crisis. Green argues that Bonhoeffer's peace ethic, which he developed throughout his life, did not rest on a rigid principle of non-violence but was instead rooted in a dynamic understanding of Scripture and the call to love one's neighbor, even in the face of profound evil. This nuanced approach allowed Bonhoeffer to reconcile his earlier pacifism with the necessity of resistance against the Nazi regime, demonstrating the complexity of his ethical thought (Green, 2005).

In sum, Dietrich Bonhoeffer's involvement in the plot to kill Hitler reflects a profound transformation in his theological and ethical perspectives. His journey from pacifism to active resistance illustrates the challenges individuals of faith face in confronting systemic evil. Bonhoeffer's legacy as a theologian and martyr inspires contemporary discussions on the relationship between faith, ethics, and political action, particularly in contexts where the complexities of human suffering and injustice obscure moral clarity.

What can we say?

This literature review is anything but conclusive. So what can we say about this? My view is that you cannot divorce the Lutheran formation in Bonhoeffer’s decision. Ethics can never be a prescribed set of works and universal codes. One can only act in faith and throw one’s self at the mercy of God. However, the overarching motivation was love for his family and those who were suffering at the hands of Hitler. One cannot justify all violence based on Bonhoeffer’s participation in this plot. One can only justify compassionate solidarity with history’s victims who materially suffer at the hands of the powerful. This suffering looks like genocide, dehumanization, and the loss of basic dignity at the hands of the government. But even then, it is not that Bonhoeffer prescribes the nuclear option. For him, this was a last resort, an apology to the world. He takes on the guilt of knowing this is an immoral action even if it is justified. He does this because he cannot wait for thousands to be killed while he can do something about it. These were extraordinary times and he made a very difficult, contextual decision. We should be careful when invoking the plot to kill Hitler in our appreciation of his participation or our own ethical decisions.

Theology in the End Times

Discussion about this post