Undeathly Hallows ?.

[Carol]

Cabal wrote:
>
> I always believed Dumbledore knew Harry had to sacrifice himself in
order NOT to die. 
 
> That Dumbledore only told Snape the part Snape needed to know
because Snape had to give Harry a memory that stated he needed to die,
not that he had a chance to live.
 
> If Harry ever thought for a second that he could survive he wouldn't
have been sacrificing himself and the magic would not have protected
him. The entire point, as I read it, was that Harry had to make the
sacrifice to both destroy the piece of Voldemorts soul inside him and
to come out alive. 
 
> I don't think Dumbledore betrayed Harry, I think it was the only way
he could get Harry to sacrifice himself the same way his mother did
and evoke that power. 

Carol responds:

That's exactly what I think, too, which is why I put "betray" in
quotation marks. Dumbledore knew what he could not tell Snape because,
as you say, Harry must not know it or his sacrifice would not be a
sacrifice, that Harry, thanks to the drop of shared blood, was likely
to survive the AK, which would destroy the soul bit but not Harry
himself if he died without fighting back and if Voldemort and no one
else cast the AK. (Dumbledore is very emphatic on that last point
while the second one is implied in allowing himself to be killed.)

But I understand Eggplant's point of view and why he prefers a morally
ambiguous Dumbledore even though I disagree that it was a real rather
than a seeming betrayal (I think it parallels Snape's seeming betrayal
of Dumbledore). At any rate, I wouldn't want to be in Dumbledore's
place, having to balance the greater good against individual good,
whether the individual is Harry or the nameless people who may be
killed as long as Horcrux!Harry, and therefore Voldemort, lives.

Carol, now seeing Dumbledore's words (something like "What did I care
if numbers of nameless people died as long as you were safe?") in a
new light