Resistance to Tyranny
Treason, Right or Duty
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 10872321 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Guenter Lewy (Smith College, corresponding author) |
| Year | 1960 |
| Volume | 13 |
| Issue | 3 |
| Pages | 581-596 |
| Publication date | 1960-09-01 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | The Western Political Quarterly (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0043-4078 • E-ISSN: 2325-8675 |
| Publisher | SAGE Publications (PUBLISHER • US) |
| DOI | 10.1177/106591296001300302 |
| OpenAlex | W2085283787 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 2 |
ON MAY 3, 1951, Otto Ernst Remer, second chairman of the Socialist Reich party, publicly denounced the organizers of the attempt on Hitler's life on July 20, 1944, as betrayers of their country and in the pay of Germany's enemies. You can rest assured, he told a gathering of about one thousand of his followers in Braunschweig, some day these traitors will be made to render account before a German court. Less than a year later Remer himself was on trial for having insulted the resisters of the twentieth of July and slandered the memory of those who had perished in the unsuccessful uprising. On March 15, 1952, Remer was found guilty of the charges and sentenced to three months' imprisonment.1 The legal proceedings against Remer attracted considerable attention all over Germany. There were probably many who shared the sentiments expressed by the Neo-Nazi. Others welcomed the chance of once and for all clearing the good name and patriotic motives of the resisters. Since the accused tried to defend himself by arguing for the truth of the allegations in question, the prosecution devoted most of its attention to the legal and moral justification of resistance to the Nazi regime. One Catholic and two Protestant theologians as well as two historians were called to the witness stand to give expert testimony on the problem of the right of resistance to tyranny. As a result the trial assumed the character of a scholarly debate with prosecution and defense vying with each other in display of erudition and philosophical sophistication. The court in its verdict accepted the opinion of the prosecutor that the Third Reich represented a state devoid of justice (Unrechtsstaat), but it refused to deny the Nazi regime all lawful status. The Third Reich in suppressing all political opposition and persecuting and exterminating millions of Jews had been clearly unjust, yet this did not decide the question of its constitutional legality. 2 Thus, in effect, the court rejected the prosecutor's contention that resistance to Hitler's Unrechtsstaat could not possibly have been illegal and that everyone in Germany had been entitled to self-defense against a state daily committing ten thousands of murders.3 The resisters were cleared of Remer's accusation of high treason on narrower grounds. The decisive question, declared the verdict, was the motives and intentions of the conspirators. For section 88 of the Criminal Code (1944 version) stated specifically: Treason within the meaning of this paragraph is committed by him who, with the aim of jeopardizing the well-being of the Reich, permits the passing of secrets of state to another person. In a formal sense the plotters had committeed high treason by taking up contact with Germany's enemies. Yet, this had been done not in order to harm
Duty · German · Imprisonment · Nazi Germany · Nazism · Political science · Politics · Resistance (ecology) · Sociology · Witness · History · International Law and Human Rights · Law · Political Theology and Sovereignty · War, Ethics, and Justification
| Citations per year | 0.11 |
|---|---|
| Citation span | 2008 - 2009 (2) |
| Highly cited | No |