Your analogy is both good and poor. Good in the sense that most American presidents in the past 100 years were awful and traitorous to america themselves, much like, I argue, was Hitler.
It is a bad analogy in the sense that Catholicism has never been part of America's govt (nor even its society, except due to sheer #s of Catholics which USED TO practice here). And certainly, we didn't live through a few decades of a total loss of catholic culture, which had been part of Germany's culture for what, 14 centuries?
Maybe we're all asking the wrong question? Maybe the question is not: Was Stauffenberg a hero vs a traitor?
Maybe the question is: In light of Germany's loss of the monarchy and its catholic heritage teetering on the edge of a cliff, was Stauffenberg justified in trying restore the monarchy in an attempt to save catholic Germany?
or should he have done nothing and supported Hitler, letting Germany slip into gradual socialism and eventual irreligiousness (as did all of Europe), for by supporting Hitler, he would have staved off the atheistic and godless attacks of Russia/Stalin?
Answer: As a nobleman of Germany, who was born with a God-given duty to his people and who had grown up being part of the ruling of his country, I think Stauffenberg had a very direct responsibility to affect the govt of Germany towards Catholicism, no matter the cost. (This assumes one is allowed to αssαssιnαtҽ a tryannical leader. I haven't studied this moral question.) It would have been easily to just sit on the sidelines, fulfill his military duty, and go home to his estate and spend his days with his young family and friends. That would have been the easy choice! The fact that he didn't do this, suggests (apart from the the evidence we have from his personal letters) that catholic duty was first and foremost on his mind.
The choice of Germany was much more nuanced than just Hitler vs Stalin. Let's not forget Mussolini, Churchill etc. Their negative influence on a future Germany can't be ruled out.
As many have pointed out, Hitler turned in his masters, which presupposes that his original masters were anything but good. Who's to say that Hitler's "turn" was from bad to good? I'm taking spiritually here. Maybe he turned from bad to less bad? Even if he turned from a satanic globalist to a Protestant, bible-loving ruler, he's still not catholic and such a change would NOT have been good for Germany.
So the choice is clear: Catholicism or bust. It's easy to second guess now, 70 years later, and say if Hitler had still ruled, Germany would've been better off. I say, would they have been? I doubt it. When a catholic country falls away from the Truth, in any direction, in any incremental fall, the results are disastrous. The end does not justify the means. One cannot support a mediocre ruler (Hitler) in order to avoid a godless one (Stalin).
One last question....if Hitler was such a "rebel" against the global elites, how did he escape into Argentina? Who let him live for so long? The joos have long been involved in Argentina - are you saying Hitler was able to hide there without the globalists knowing? No way! More likely, Hitler was a pawn in a global scheme to destroy Germany, much like Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin were pawns. The real rulers are nameless and behind the scenes. Hitler may have butted heads with them, but he fulfilled his purpose - Germany was destroyed economically, socially and religiously. And Europe fell, post WW2, into socialism and irreligiousness because Germany was weak spiritually. Mission accomplished.
Poll
