The Forum Site - Join the conversation
Forums: Society & Lifestyles:
History

Pacifist Response to Hitler

Reply to Topic
AuthorMessage
Pages: << · 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 · >>
nooneinparticular On March 16, 2023




, Hawaii
#31New Post! Dec 14, 2018 @ 03:48:11
@Eaglebauer Said

Between April and June 1994, an estimated 800,000 Rwandans were killed in the space of 100 days.

That's eight tenths of a million people wiped off the face of the earth. Gone. Murdered. Dead. In just barely over three months on the calendar.

This was not in some anachronistic, archaic backland of the middle ages with Vlad the Impaler sticking heads on pikes...the victims were not killed while being pressed into slavery on some eighteenth or nineteenth century ship. This was an exit or two back on the highway.

I have adult memories of this happening.

To paraphrase from another thread on this site that I posted in a long time ago, history provides incredibly few examples of people who categorically say that all war in all forms is unjust who also have lived under extreme oppression and truly tyrannical, abusive powers. The vast majority of people who make those categorical claims have the luxury of their idealism because they do not have to fight to live peacefully and without real oppression directing the way they live or die. Yes, racism and sexism, homophobia...those are all forms of oppression and should be battled as effectively as possible without resorting to violence.

In my opinion, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was one of the absolute greatest men in modern history, anywhere in the world, for his efforts in advancing that ideal in people and spreading a message of love and acceptance over reactionary violence and conflict.

But still, there is less room for philosophy when you and your family are being starved to death. Or herded, cow-like, into a killing field.

It is very easy to speak of the immorality of war and claim that any rationale of it is perverse from the relative comfort of a life devoid of the turmoils of those less fortunate. And those claims are often made in the name of philanthropy and pacifism.

But there is no compassion or philanthropy in condemning those very people for seeing merit in fighting for a better life for themselves, through warfare if necessary, and shaming them from the distant shelter of your own, better life.

I am certain that the Jews of Warsaw would fail to see the humanity in telling them society should have voted them into a safer existence and that because of that rationale, they should not resort to violence to save themselves and their own.

I do understand Jennifer's points and agree with many of them, actually. I do believe that warfare should be a last, rather than a first resort. I do believe that that "x in the box" method of fighting oppression is preferable to the gun in the hand method. But even in very recent times in the world, there are places where the x in the box is not an option. It isn't a case of it being ineffective, in some instances it's a case of it being nonexistent. In the wake of the truths of things like the existence of idiotic nationalism in most developed nations on both sides of the pond, and untruths like the proffered lie that the american police are murdering a disproportionate amount of black people for no reason (yes, this is an untruth), what we are left with is a society in a volatile, delicate state. When you boil a pot of water, just before it starts to bubble, you can see the heat writhing and moving around inside the liquid. That writhing is going on in our communities in a lot of places now, and truths mounted on untruths mounted on other truths, ad nauseum, only serve to add to the confusion.

But that's all still going on in a civilized, organized world where we do have those boxes to place x's into.

War is a filthy, ugly, dirty, rotten thing that we do. And where it happens, the world is not civilized and organized and becomes more hostile and chaotic. It's a natural human reaction to have an aversion to that. The combat veterans I have known are the people who are the most acutely aware of that aversion and fall the most silent when the topic of war is breached.

But history is unfortunately littered with examples in which the avoidance of war failed humanity and ended innocent lives. It is for those reasons that I am rather reluctant to then besmirch the efforts of those who picked up a rifle in defense of the millions, some of them my own ancestors, who were denied the right to the x in the box and placed in boxes of their own...starved, gutted, sexually assaulted...flayed alive...gassed...and sent up the chimney at the hands of an army of psychopaths who time and again had proven that they would not respond to pacifistic appeals. That is, after all, what we are speaking about.

There is a personal historic connection I have with those people, and it stirs something heartwrenching in me to know that many of them may have been ultimately saved an insurmountable degree of suffering and torture had action been taken sooner as the German army was violating treaties and breaching borders while diplomatic pleas fell dead on their ears. Perhaps it hits closer to home for me, and perhaps that's part of my view in the issue. Perhaps not.


War is a messy, ugly thing. What do we make of Hitlers men? The rank and file that herded all enemies of the Nazis into concentration camps, not just Jews? An army is nothing without it's soldiers, after all. Without the rank and file to carry them out, the chain of command would look no different then a white supremacist meeting. When talking of opposing psychopaths, we must remember that it is the rank and file that ultimately carry out those orders. Consequentially, it is the rank and file that will take the lions share of the casualties of war, not the leaders, whether they be true believers or simply protecting their own skins.

No matter how we choose to justify a war, whether it be about liberation, containment of a dangerous force, or some other reason, we must always remember that not everyone you meet on the field of battle will be a true believer. And therin lies the pacifists chance...
chaski On about 19 hours ago
Stalker





Tree at Floydgirrl's Window,
#32New Post! Dec 14, 2018 @ 03:59:45
@nooneinparticular Said

War is a messy, ugly thing. What do we make of Hitlers men? The rank and file that herded all enemies of the Nazis into concentration camps, not just Jews? An army is nothing without it's soldiers, after all. Without the rank and file to carry them out, the chain of command would look no different then a white supremacist meeting. When talking of opposing psychopaths, we must remember that it is the rank and file that ultimately carry out those orders. Consequentially, it is the rank and file that will take the lions share of the casualties of war, not the leaders, whether they be true believers or simply protecting their own skins.

No matter how we choose to justify a war, whether it be about liberation, containment of a dangerous force, or some other reason, we must always remember that not everyone you meet on the field of battle will be a true believer. And therin lies the pacifists chance...



Soldiers, the "rank and file" as you call them, follow orders.

The command... the leaders... give the orders.
nooneinparticular On March 16, 2023




, Hawaii
#33New Post! Dec 14, 2018 @ 04:16:51
@chaski Said

Pick one.

Which one would have worked as a "response to Hitler".


After he gained power or before? And I suppose that depends on what your goals are. Is it containment or eradication that's the end goal here? Containment might have been viable in the early stages, assuming that the powers of the world banded together before Hitler came knocking on their respective doors with tank rounds.

Eradication is a bit trickier, but not unreasonably so. In fact, it is a variation of something you, perhaps jokingly, said in regards to North Korea. At least I think it was you that said that perhaps the US could win over North Korea by bringing McDonalds and Starbucks to North Korea.

It wouldn't be exactly the same, but the concept is still there. War is a means to subjugate your opponents, while humanitarian aid is a means to turn the population against their rulers.
nooneinparticular On March 16, 2023




, Hawaii
#34New Post! Dec 14, 2018 @ 04:20:29
@chaski Said

Soldiers, the "rank and file" as you call them, follow orders.

The command... the leaders... give the orders.


I'm well aware of that. Just because you follow an order does not then mean you believe in it, though.
chaski On about 19 hours ago
Stalker





Tree at Floydgirrl's Window,
#35New Post! Dec 14, 2018 @ 05:11:26
@nooneinparticular Said

After he gained power or before?


After.

Which one would have worked as a "response to Hitler" after he gained power?

@nooneinparticular Said

War is a means to subjugate your opponents


Sometimes war is a response to those who are trying to subjugate you... that is, not so much to subjugate them as to not be subjugated by them.
Jennifer1984 On July 20, 2022
Returner and proud





Penzance, United Kingdom
#36New Post! Dec 14, 2018 @ 06:22:18
@chaski Said

Soldiers, the "rank and file" as you call them, follow orders.

The command... the leaders... give the orders.



Under the terms of the Geneva Convention, a subordinate is only required to obey LAWFUL orders. That is, lawful under the terms of the convention.... which is an international treaty combatant nations may be signed up to. If the Private in the field finds himself with a choice to make, remember, by joining the army, you accepted those conditions. Your choice. Nobody forced you into the recruiting office.

Now, I'm aware that the battlefield, with bullets whizzing around soldiers ears and spanging off bits of metal in all directions, is not a good place to ask "Is that a lawful order, Sarge..?" That's a given.

But it is incumbent on armies to make it known to senior officers and non commissioned officers a) what orders are lawful and what are not, b) the consequences of issuing unlawful orders and c) the consequences to ALL ranks of obeying such commands.

There were no battlefield conditions in the death camps or at My Lai, or in Afghan villages that precluded a more sober assessment of the situation by the individuals tasked with performing atrocities. They just went ahead and did it thinking they could abrogate responsibility for their actions by hiding behind the false argument of what has become known as "The Nuremburg Defence."

At the Nuremburg Trials, Senior Nazis charged with war crimes attempted to make that very defence. It didn't work. They were hanged.

There will always be public sympathy though, for soldiers faced with the consequences of their actions. This is another symptom of how we treat the enemy as sub-human. In Vietnam, killing "Gooks" was a good thing. Those killed at My Lai were added to that days body count and paraded to the American people as a sign that America was winning the war.

And we all know how that ended.

It brings me back to my standing point that the Nuremburg Defence is only possible where we see the enemy as less than human. Such an attitude promotes the belief among troops that they can do as they please with impunity and no court at home will convict because they're wearing the "white hats" and the enemy is wearing "black pyjamas".

Funny isn't it, though, that our brave, fearless, jutting-jawed heroes can do these things and hey, that's alright. But when the "cowardly, villainous" enemy commit atrocities such as beheadings of captured soldiers, that's an outrage (and it is. Not condoning such things at all). We're human and they're not. This is the central tenet that underpins all military conflict.

I can hear it coming though.... "When you're in the middle of a firefight, you don't think of the niceties of the law. You just want to live." Fair enough. That's the survival instinct. But you should think of this when you join up. Look past the bulls*** recruiting language and realise what you're letting yourself in for. You will be expected to perform to the highest standards and if you don't, you'll possibly live, but you'll be held accountable just the same. You want to sign up? You want to join? Fine. That decision is yours to make.

Make it with your eyes open, though.

All war creates outrages, but the Nuremburg Defence is NOT a defence. Soldiers must know right from wrong and know that the law applies to them at all times.

Even on the battlefield.
Leon On December 21, 2023




San Diego, California
#37New Post! Dec 14, 2018 @ 06:34:55
@nooneinparticular Said

What type of pacifism are we talking about here? There are different non violent responses to aggression. One option is to hide, and to keep hiding should you be found. Another is to declare yourself and those that follow you neutral parties, and to only engage in purely defensive acts, like protecting yourselves. Another is a favorite of MLK and Ghandi, which is to openly declare yourself in opposition to your aggressors, but not take part in violence.

My question is whether ANY pacist response (in other words, non-violent response) towards Hitler’s aggression against Jews and neighboring countries would work in stopping him. So it would be up to you, Jennifer, or anyone else who believes the answer is “yes” to explain what that would look like and how it would work. Not me, as I’m not partial at this time.

@nooneinparticular Said
As an aside, your question here is reliant on the idea that some people attack or hurt others for no reason, and thus cannot be reasoned with and the only recourse is incarceration or death. Is this the stance you are taking or am I missing something?

Sure, there are people like that.

But there are also people who otherwise could have been reasoned with ahead of time, or whose situation could have been made better to prevent their hurtful intent, but that such preventive intervention failed to appear, failed to alleviate, or wasn’t enough to prevent that person from overcoming past pain and/or reaching an unmitigatable boiling point.

I agree with Jennifer that we can do a better job in such methods of preventative intervention. But my question to her now is what to do about those who are already committing unspeakable crimes, whatever the cause or reason. Do we allow Bin Laden to direct planes into buildings while we negotiate a Palestine-Israeli treaty to his satisfaction?

@chaski Said

After.



Folks, it’s in the title of this thread. RESPONSE TO Hitler, not prevention of Hitler.
Jennifer1984 On July 20, 2022
Returner and proud





Penzance, United Kingdom
#38New Post! Dec 14, 2018 @ 07:26:03
@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.
Leon On December 21, 2023




San Diego, California
#39New Post! Dec 14, 2018 @ 09:04:08
@Jennifer1984 Said

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.


Thank you for your time.

I apologize if I have made you feel that I am attempting to box you into a certain response, or, in your earlier assertations, attempting to bait you. While we may have had our differences in the past, I assure you, neither is the case here.

I too, like you, am not enamoured by war. In case it went unnoticed in the other thread, war movies I most admire are more anti-war in nature than anything else. Others close to me will attest how much I have admired Gandhi, MLK, Jimmy Carter, Jesus (the real-life Jesus, not the exhaulted Jesus most know him as), Bono, and Siddhartha over all other historical figures during my lifetime.

Please understand that I really find much to admire about the pacifist ideal and very much would like to see it as a workable solution to our ills. This is why I have pestered you in the past on approaching the subject, and why I it gave me hope when you finally complied, and my long time questions would finally be addressed with your undoubtedly detailed responses that you are known here for.

When one presents a theory, however, is it not natural for the listener to have questions before getting on board? And is it not natural for these questions to often be more situational, practical in nature? It is our way of testing a theory. Not to shoot it down, but to see if it truly would work as hoped in all situations.

So please don’t feel threatened by my questions. I like the ideal. I am very appreciative of the philosophy of prevention that you have eloquently presented here twice. I just want to know how it would work when tested in our real world. Yes, by using actual events that we have suffered through in the past, such as Hitler. What else can we use?

Yes, the past is the past, we have learned from the past and yes, and we can move on from it. But it is also human nature to fail. To get hurt. To get angry. So it is bound to repeat itself, many times. And this will never change.

So I’d like an ideal to address such “what if’s” rather than blindly assume it will work for everyone all the time.

And I think that’s very reasonable.
Eaglebauer On July 23, 2019
Moderator
Deleted



Saint Louis, Missouri
#40New Post! Dec 14, 2018 @ 14:39:54
@nooneinparticular Said

I'm well aware of that. Just because you follow an order does not then mean you believe in it, though.


Thanks for your reply, and I'm replying to both your direct quote of me and the post above...

If a man is ordered to kill you and follows that order, would it matter to you whether or not he believed in it? Would it matter to your loved ones, if it could have been avoided but wasn't because it was thought he should have been given a chance to reconsider? I am fully aware that many of the German people, including several of those who wore the uniform, were duped...in some cases victimized...by Hitler and his regime. I am a fairly well read student of that history, and you're absolutely correct.

But that does not allay my opinion that force, in that case, had to be met with force. When an evil dictator (I think I am okay in safely calling him that...I know that history is replete with examples of rulers who are portrayed as evil simply because they lost wars but I don't have a problem calling Hitler and the Nazi regime evil) surrounds himself with an army of pawns who follow his orders, however begrudgingly, and makes it clear that he is going to continue doing evil things as long as he can, that army of pawns becomes an unfortunate set of victims in some cases and the recipient of justice in others.

True, the argument can be made, as you mentioned "therein lies the pacifist's chance," that if one could diplomatically convince an army of reluctant soldiers to stop following orders, possibly turn on their evil leader, and thereby disarm him of his means to carry out his evil deeds it would avoid bloodshed. That is an argument. The problem with it though is that something like that takes time, and meanwhile, millions of innocent families with children are being slaughtered while we wait for the reluctant soldiers to be convinced that they shouldn't slaughter them. Or at the very least, that they shouldn't continue fighting on the battlefield so as to allow their countrymen to continue the slaughter untouched by the advance of those who would stop them.

In this special instance, someone's blood is going to be spilled regardless of which method is chosen. Either the people being marched to the camps or those who are marching them along with the army that protects them.

And if we choose to try pacifism (which incidentally had already shown little effect by the 1940s), there is a very good chance it won't work. And those families will go on being slaughtered. Even up until the very end of the war, the Nazis continued pouring money and resources into their final solution while the vitality of the German citizenry began to disintegrate and their war machine had begun to break down...they doubled down and kept fueling the concentration camps, suggesting they (the German high command) were more interested in continuing the wholesale killing of innocent Jews, gypsies, political dissidents, homosexuals, communists, mentally ill, Jehovah's Witnesses, et al, than they were in winning the war. Talking to them was simply not going to stop that.

Purely from a cold, logical standpoint, it begs the question: Whose blood is more worth saving? The soldier who reluctantly carries out the orders of the machine that kills millions of innocents, or the millions of innocents who are being killed? Because as I said, in this case, someone is going to die.

And what should we say to the Warsaw Jew with the family? That he must continue to wither and watch his children die of starvation in front of him so that the healthy, strapping solider on the battlefield protecting those that starve him might be given a chance to change his mind? I'm sorry. I cannot agree.

I am not pro war. I think anyone with a sound mind has to say the same. I am not pro-violence or killing. If I see a man about to kill my son, I am not going to enjoy killing him, but I will do it. Begrudgingly, yet without hesitation.

I also realize I may be responding to things you're not saying...I tend to ramble on this particular subject. It's personal for me, which is why I also may use more colorful or euphemistic language than is warranted at times, vis a vis referring to an army of psychopaths.
chaski On about 19 hours ago
Stalker





Tree at Floydgirrl's Window,
#41New Post! Dec 14, 2018 @ 16:37:07
Response deleted... I had a brain warp. My bad.
nooneinparticular On March 16, 2023




, Hawaii
#42New Post! Dec 15, 2018 @ 00:02:15
@chaski Said

After.

Which one would have worked as a "response to Hitler" after he gained power?


Like I mentioned earlier, containment and aid are two workable solutions,at least in theory. Though since we are talking about a hypothetical response to an untestable situation, then I suppose by necessity everything is theoretical.

Quote:

Sometimes war is a response to those who are trying to subjugate you... that is, not so much to subjugate them as to not be subjugated by them.


The reasons matter little; the end result is the same.

Though perhaps 'subjugation' was not the right word for me to use here. Wars of liberation, of defense, and of containment all require that a conquered force and people acquiesce to the will of the winners in some fashion. It may not be as total and brutal as subjugation in the traditional sense, but even wars of defense must end either with the defender defeated or the attacker forced to stop attacking. The will of the defender to stop being attacked is then adopted by both parties, while the will of the attacker to attack and conquer is rendered impotent.
chaski On about 19 hours ago
Stalker





Tree at Floydgirrl's Window,
#43New Post! Dec 15, 2018 @ 00:14:39
@nooneinparticular Said

Like I mentioned earlier, containment and aid are two workable solutions,at least in theory.


I'm not sure the Jews had either option. They had no ability to to contain the Nazis and the rest of the world was offering very little aid.

@nooneinparticular Said


The reasons matter little



I totally disagree.

Example: There is a huge difference between (A) Nazi Germany going to war with a country to dominated them (think invasion of France) and (B) France trying to defend itself.

In the situation (A) Nazi Germany had a choice to not start a war.
In the situation (B) France only had two choices... fight back in defense of oneself or be lose their sovereignty as a nation.

The reasons are very different and make a difference. One scenario is aggression out of (ultimately) greed. The other is defense after being attacked.

If I attack you, and my goal is money/revenge/fun... I am committing a crime.
If you attack me back in self defense, you are not committing a crime.

And the end result is not always the same... in one scenario a country is invaded and loses is sovereignty & the person gets hurt and/or loses his money.

In the other scenario, a country fights and (and in the case of WW 2) wins back its sovereignty and freedom. & the person (maybe) walks away unscathed and with his possessions.

Reasons do matter and do make a huge difference.

Note: The Dali Lama would most likely disagree with me.
nooneinparticular On March 16, 2023




, Hawaii
#44New Post! Dec 15, 2018 @ 00:48:59
@Leon Said

My question is whether ANY pacist response (in other words, non-violent response) towards Hitler’s aggression against Jews and neighboring countries would work in stopping him. So it would be up to you, Jennifer, or anyone else who believes the answer is “yes” to explain what that would look like and how it would work. Not me, as I’m not partial at this time.


Again, that depends on what your goals are. Is it to stop his advance across Europe, or is it to free the people in his concentration camps from atrocities? Because while containment is a viable pacifist strategy, it does very little to address the problem of stopping atrocities immediately, or even in much of a timely fashion. Containment is basically the military equivalent of sanctions, in which you wait for either a populist revolt or the empire you're containing to fall into ruin. Both outcomes have large, negative ramifications for the civilian population.

If you're saying that the impetus is on me or anyone else to outline exactly what a pacifist response would look like, you're saying that anything short of open wars of aggression to take territory is permissible. You are effectively allowing me to define what it means to be pacifist. When people talk of pacifism, I've found that there are generally two camps that support the idea. Those who follow Ghandi's rhetoric and refuse to endorse a standing army, and those who follow Theodore Roosevelt's rhetoric and follow the concept of if you can field a big enough army, no one will wish to oppose you in a war. Either way leads to peace, and both have their drawbacks, but it's not like waging a war of aggression under the pretense of liberation or expansion doesn't have it's own drawbacks to consider.

Quote:

Sure, there are people like that.

But there are also people who otherwise could have been reasoned with ahead of time, or whose situation could have been made better to prevent their hurtful intent, but that such preventive intervention failed to appear, failed to alleviate, or wasn’t enough to prevent that person from overcoming past pain and/or reaching an unmitigatable boiling point.

I agree with Jennifer that we can do a better job in such methods of preventative intervention. But my question to her now is what to do about those who are already committing unspeakable crimes, whatever the cause or reason. Do we allow Bin Laden to direct planes into buildings while we negotiate a Palestine-Israeli treaty to his satisfaction?


Did his death stop plots against the United States? Did the invasion? Unquestionably, the decision to invade cost us some trust at the bargaining table and makes it more difficult to reach an amiable agreement. Also unquestionably, Bin Laden's death was as helpful as it was hurtful to the goal of peace. By killing Bin Laden, we have created a stop gap solution for the terrorist acts plotted by him. Unfortunately, also by killing him we have turned him into a martyr and galvanized both the other terrorist groups in their hatred of us and the remnants of his own.

The crux of the pacifist argument is not that their people should roll over, or acquiesce to the demands of tyrants, or to appease a force in perpetuity. It is simply that war, as a vehicle of the state, is both the most inefficient and costly action a government can use in order to continue diplomacy by other means. This cost is so egregiously inefficient that the concept itself is considered anathema.
nooneinparticular On March 16, 2023




, Hawaii
#45New Post! Dec 15, 2018 @ 01:48:42
@Eaglebauer Said

Thanks for your reply, and I'm replying to both your direct quote of me and the post above...

If a man is ordered to kill you and follows that order, would it matter to you whether or not he believed in it? Would it matter to your loved ones, if it could have been avoided but wasn't because it was thought he should have been given a chance to reconsider? I am fully aware that many of the German people, including several of those who wore the uniform, were duped...in some cases victimized...by Hitler and his regime. I am a fairly well read student of that history, and you're absolutely correct.

But that does not allay my opinion that force, in that case, had to be met with force. When an evil dictator (I think I am okay in safely calling him that...I know that history is replete with examples of rulers who are portrayed as evil simply because they lost wars but I don't have a problem calling Hitler and the Nazi regime evil) surrounds himself with an army of pawns who follow his orders, however begrudgingly, and makes it clear that he is going to continue doing evil things as long as he can, that army of pawns becomes an unfortunate set of victims in some cases and the recipient of justice in others.

True, the argument can be made, as you mentioned "therein lies the pacifist's chance," that if one could diplomatically convince an army of reluctant soldiers to stop following orders, possibly turn on their evil leader, and thereby disarm him of his means to carry out his evil deeds it would avoid bloodshed. That is an argument. The problem with it though is that something like that takes time, and meanwhile, millions of innocent families with children are being slaughtered while we wait for the reluctant soldiers to be convinced that they shouldn't slaughter them. Or at the very least, that they shouldn't continue fighting on the battlefield so as to allow their countrymen to continue the slaughter untouched by the advance of those who would stop them.

In this special instance, someone's blood is going to be spilled regardless of which method is chosen. Either the people being marched to the camps or those who are marching them along with the army that protects them.

And if we choose to try pacifism (which incidentally had already shown little effect by the 1940s), there is a very good chance it won't work. And those families will go on being slaughtered. Even up until the very end of the war, the Nazis continued pouring money and resources into their final solution while the vitality of the German citizenry began to disintegrate and their war machine had begun to break down...they doubled down and kept fueling the concentration camps, suggesting they (the German high command) were more interested in continuing the wholesale killing of innocent Jews, gypsies, political dissidents, homosexuals, communists, mentally ill, Jehovah's Witnesses, et al, than they were in winning the war. Talking to them was simply not going to stop that.

Purely from a cold, logical standpoint, it begs the question: Whose blood is more worth saving? The soldier who reluctantly carries out the orders of the machine that kills millions of innocents, or the millions of innocents who are being killed? Because as I said, in this case, someone is going to die.

And what should we say to the Warsaw Jew with the family? That he must continue to wither and watch his children die of starvation in front of him so that the healthy, strapping solider on the battlefield protecting those that starve him might be given a chance to change his mind? I'm sorry. I cannot agree.

I am not pro war. I think anyone with a sound mind has to say the same. I am not pro-violence or killing. If I see a man about to kill my son, I am not going to enjoy killing him, but I will do it. Begrudgingly, yet without hesitation.

I also realize I may be responding to things you're not saying...I tend to ramble on this particular subject. It's personal for me, which is why I also may use more colorful or euphemistic language than is warranted at times, vis a vis referring to an army of psychopaths.


A fair point, but let me ask another in response. Does the family of a soldier care if their lover, their parent, or their child died defending people that aren't them in a foreign land, in a war that could have potentially been avoided by other means, regardless of what those means meant. For instance, you ask what we should tell the families of those left to suffer if we choose a slower approach to peace. My response is that because of the expediency of war that is payed for in human lives, we already ask this self same sacrifice of our own citizens. We ask them to put the wishes of others before their own. We ask them to watch their families grow smaller, for them to sacrifice their loved ones, for a people thousands of miles away in a land they do not know. You ask how we can ask of a victimized people to wither away while our own troops and their captors lie safe. I ask how we can ask of our own people to wither away while people they do not know lie safe.

The cold calculus of war runs in both directions. We ask of our own to make that sacrifice because, logically and numerically, we might save more victims lives then we would cost our own. Not necessarily for both sides of the war, but our own. This, of course, implies that any military engagement about saving people from death or tyrants is not based on a principle but on a numbers game. If you happen to be worth more than the cost of engagement, you're saved. If you aren't then you suffer and probably die. North Korea epitomizes the value of this numbers game. Most Western Nations agree that North Korea is a brutal dictatorship that routinely victimizes it's own people. Even still, the deaths of vast amounts of the South Korean people as well as the subsequent cost of a land war means that for as despotic as the North Korean regime is, the deaths of it's own people is the preferred option.

That, however, is not a very compelling argument for the grieving widow, child, or parent. In much the same way that asking victims to suffer is not a very compelling argument for the grieving loved ones of those victims, so too does this fall somewhat short. Thus we dress their deaths up in nationalistic fervor and re-affirm, whether truly necessary or not, that their life and death served the greater good. Just as we passively condemn those who suffer because their liberation would cost us too much in the process. We justify it with the use of the calculus of war. That their suffering and death served the greater good in the end.
Reply to Topic<< Previous Topic | Next Topic >>
Pages: << · 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 · >>

1 browsing (0 members - 1 guest)

Quick Reply
Be Respectful of Others

      
Subscribe to topic prefs

Similar Topics
    Forum Topic Last Post Replies Views
New posts   Site Support
Fri Jul 31, 2009 @ 01:53
10 986
New posts   Random
Wed Aug 17, 2005 @ 14:07
6 410
New posts   Site Support
Tue Jul 13, 2010 @ 19:10
46 2187
New posts   Site Support
Sun Nov 16, 2008 @ 10:21
11 725
New posts   Random
Fri May 11, 2007 @ 05:15
21 793