@Leon Said
Thank you.
Unfortunately the only examples where such methods were put into practice and proven effective were in places where the government in power had a moral compass that was, for the most part, already in practice. Such was the case for Gandhi and MLK, so it was much easier to play the conscious and win than it probably would have been against the likes of Hitler.
I don’t have much more to add to that since Eaglebauer above explains very well why it worked for them and may not when under more hostile regimes.
But I await Jennifer’s response on how she would deal with the more extreme inhumane examples whenever they, and once they do, occur, if she were in power at the time of such occurrences. Maybe she can convince us otherwise.
I refer you to my previous post which made reference to historic events. Blood feuds arose and became the norm until challenged. We cannot change anything that happened in the past as a result of ignorance and primitive attitudes. WWII was unstoppable AT THAT TIME because humanity had not yet evolved a philosophy that allowed us to put in place the conditions to prevent it.
The Treaty of Versailles was written by the victors and especially the French who saw it as an opportunity to crush an ancient enemy once and for all, and prevent it from having the wherewithall to rise again.
The very treaty that was put to the people as a guarantee of future peace,
created the conditions for the next conflict.
I hope you understand this because it's central to your entire issue.
Had the negotiators at Versailles adopted a less humiliating attitude towards Germany... had they seen that Germany had suffered too... had they accepted that the best way forward was to unite Europe rather than attempt to crush a nation....
the conditions that led to WWII would never have existed.
The European Union has brought peace in Europe since 1945 by doing that very thing.... binding nations together. Creating unity. Promoting free trade and movement of its peoples. Recognising each other's history, customs, traditions and cultures and celebrating them.
If that had happened in 1918, there would have been no WWII and nobody would have ever heard of Adoph Hitler.
That is an example of how peaceful co-existence.... recognising the humanity and dignity of others..... is seen to work. Do you think Germany and France have never argued since 1945..? You bet they have. They disagree on much. In the past, those arguments might have led to war. Not any more. Now they discuss their problems and overcome them. The EU also contains in its charter a non-aggression pact among all member states...... and it's adhered to.
I also made the point in my previous that the path to global peace is a long and difficult one and we're a long way from reaching the end.
In the 1930's humanity was still in the "Blood Feud" stage. Since 1945 we've moved on. The Universal Charter of Human Rights is often derided and mocked as "Political Correctness".
But that document grew out of the darkness of the Second World War and the Holocaust. It is a bulwark against such things ever happening again. It is probably the greatest humanitarian document we as a species have ever constructed.
Why...? Because it recognises that we're all human. Everybody. Nobody is excluded. Not even criminals, terrorists and yes.. even paedophiles...!! They're human too. And that is the biggest single step to the eradication of armed conflict everywhere because it gives those who want to prevent the wicked things that some people do a basis on which to say "You're not filth, or scum or sub-human. You are a human being and you have your side of the story to tell. We want to listen and learn so we can make things better in the future for everybody. You included."
We don't make concessions to criminality, but we do try to help the criminal rehabilitate and reform. That is humanity.
If you can't grasp and accept this now you never will. Please don't attempt to bait me with Adolph Hitler or World War Two any more. I've said... at great length... all I have to say on that.
Taking your other point that MLK, Gandhi (and don't forget Nelson Mandela's policy of reconciliation after Apartheid ended in South Africa) I think that is fair comment. But where did the moral compass of those countries come from...?
The US Constitution that empowered MLK's demands for civil rights was created after a long and bloody war of independence. It was written at a time when the founding fathers wanted to create a peaceful and united country that took the best parts of the old world and rejected the worst.
The Monroe Doctrine was designed to keep America out of foreign wars.
Gandhi opposed a Britain that hadn't taken India by force. Rather, India was taken by aggressive trading practices by people such as Robert Clive. India fell to market forces not military ones. The entire British Empire was built on such practices... and often administered in unscrupulous ways (eg: the opium trade in China).
Oh, for sure, we waged war, but of an economic nature that was backed up by force where necessary. But even then, we didn't use our own troops in the main. How could a tiny island nation with a small army operating many thousands of miles from home possibly overcome an Indian force immeasurably stronger fighting on their home ground..? Simple. Get Indians to fight for you. Britain exploited existing tribal hatreds to set Indian against Indian and fight for the British Raj..!!
But that was in India and it was pretty much conducted out of sight of the home population. As long as the silks and spices and other goods continued to flow, nobody cared what was happening in a country where the population was considered ignorant and beneath us.... inferior to us...
The British government had no intention of giving anything away to India until Gandhi came to Britain and the people saw him and met him and spoke to him. His humility, simple, plain honesty and above all his pacifism... his refusal to see British soldiers killed (even the officer who ordered the Amritsar Massacre) impressed the British people at home. That's when the British "moral compass" kicked in.
Gandhi said "For my cause I am prepared to die. There is no cause for which I am prepared to kill."
That statement had a seismic effect on British public opinion. And more than any bullet, gun or bayonet, was the mortal wound that he inflicted on the Raj.
When apartheid fell in South Africa, the white population feared that they would have to resort to arms to avoid being butchered by vengeful black people seeking (guess what..?) revenge for all the suffering that had been inflicted on them and yes, at first there was much civil unrest and disturbance.
Mandela called for the "Truth and Reconciliation" doctrine that brought those who had oppressed forward to admit to what they'd done in humility and be forgiven by a people who now rejected violence.
That was the clearest example of the Peacemaker's doctrine. Both sides admitting the other is human and both sides willing to put ancient enmities aside to live in peace in the future with the desire for vengeance rejected once and for all. Black and white. All South Africans.
Pacifism DOES work.
Post script:
I've just seen your latest message, where you insist that I reply to how Hitler SHOULD have been dealt with. I know exactly what you're trying to do: Box me into a corner where you can force me to admit that military force is right and proper.
That's not going to happen.
I've already said... quite clearly... that history cannot be changed and I will not attempt to do so. I recognise the history of "blood feuds" and do not deny that they happened.
My argument is that we must progress as a species and learn from the mistakes of the past, not use them as a basis for continuing in the same way.
You clearly support violence as "an extension of politics by other means" otherwise you wouldn't be trying to box me into a response I'm not going to make. If you want to claim that as some sort of victory, go ahead. It will say more about you than it does about me.
You can cling to historic justifications for killing all you like. I'll look forward and propose a way forward that could reduce.... and in time, possibly even prevent.... such things happening again.