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 · >>
chaski On March 28, 2024
Stalker





Tree at Floydgirrl's Window,
#76New Post! Dec 17, 2018 @ 20:32:23
@nooneinparticular Said

Well, like I said, different people define 'pacifist' differently. Some forms of pacifism allow for the defending of yourself while others don't.



So which definition of pacifism and which technique of pacifist response would be your go to definition & technique.

I apologize if you have already stated this answer, but I can't seem to sift through the other posts to get a specific direct answer.
nooneinparticular On March 16, 2023




, Hawaii
#77New Post! Dec 17, 2018 @ 22:37:35
@Eaglebauer Said

The difference is that the soldier chose to be there. His fate was not thrust upon him without any of his own cooperation.

You cannot tell me that you don't see the difference between a soldier being killed on the battlefield and child being starved to death who has done nothing to choose his fate. I hope you can't anyway.

It's the difference between someone caught committing a crime being put in a prison cell and someone innocent being kidnapped and held in a basement against his or her will. I absolutely have more sympathy for the kidnapping victim than I do for the prisoner.

And yes, I have a large degree more sympathy for the victims of civilian casualty and their families than I do for the survivors of those who victimized them. I'm not sure if your argument is designed to second guess that offset of sympathy, but I'm not ashamed of it and I absolutely declare it to be my stance.

Even in the case of conscription, where men have been pressed into service against their will, it necessarily comes down at times to survival...when should one intervene and try to get a drafted soldier to defect or abandon his post? After we have somehow approached him and determined that he is not a willing soldier by questioning him in some way without getting shot first? I just don't know how this would work. Do we launch some kind of campaign whereby we make public announcements directed at those soldier who might lay down arms and stop fighting in a cause they don't believe in?


No, it was more designed to second guess the weights we place on all casualties. You say you have no sympathy for aggressors. Fair enough. Personally I view the unnecessary deaths of any person a waste, including aggressors. I acknowledge wholeheartedly that this is purely a personal feeling and consequentially it is of little use in a discussion of differing opinions. The main point I was trying to make, however, was that the death of a loved one touches many, and that damage carries on. Whether it be our own or the enemies, that damage carries on. You seemingly don't care about the damage caused to an enemy. Fair enough. But what of the damage caused to us in the process?


Quote:

And in the meantime...do we allow the rest of them to continue slaughtering innocent people so that we can say we approached it as pacifists? Where is the compassion in that? Where is the compassion for those innocents we may have saved, and why is the life of a German soldier who may or may not have Nazism totally in his heart but is still an active part of a huge, systematic, evil killing machine of more import to you than a race of people being held hostage and forced to live...then die...under the most profanely inhuman condition imaginable?

The solution to keep blood off of our hands places the aggressor's life above anyone else's in this case. I reiterate from my previous post...in the case of the first half to the 1940s and the final solution...in the scope of what we are talking about here...someone is necessarily going to die. One of the gravest evils in these cases is a failure to do anything and to allow those carrying out genocide to continue carrying it out so that we may morally absolve ourselves of having to make the difficult choice of forcing them to stop. But sure, at least we can say we didn't upset their families. Meanwhile, they continue to kill millions of other people. Who did absolutely nothing to deserve it.

EDIT: I'm responding before reading all the other responses after...if this has been brought up by someone else I'll circle back.


Just as pacifism must face the realities of the world and adapt, so too must the concept of a principled war. When you talk of evil that must be stopped, that is a casus belli based on principle. The problem being that waging such a war leaves no room for it's calculus. If we argue that 'one of the gravest evils' is to allow atrocity, then what do we make of the world we have now? In which atrocities go unstopped because the calculus of war deems it not worth the cost? If we argue that such calculus should not stand in our way, then the inevitable situation is one in which we wage ideological wars, regardless of their costs and our ability to end them. If we argue the opposite, that ultimately such calculus is more important than the reason for the war in the first place, then the principle we hold so dearly is simply an excuse. A convenient moral shield and nothing more. This is evident in how the world has treated the word genocide since WWII. Redefining upon redefining so the world is allowed to officially wash it's hands of tyrants.

Quote:

And it looks like Leon kind of did.

I'm not sure where we started deciding that the way someone's loved ones feel should determine how we approach a holocaust? If I'm about to kill someone who doesn't deserve it, it shouldn't matter how my mother feels about it if someone else decides to intervene and stop me, should it? Should my victim die unfairly and needlessly so that 1) I can escape death myself, and 2) my mother won't be as upset about it?

This is kind of a bizarre reasoning as I'm reading it...maybe I'm missing something.

Perhaps this is all coming from my mention of the Warsaw Jew with the family watching his own children die. The difference there is that he isn't just surviving a victim in his family, he's also a victim himself in a very real, direct way.

Perhaps it was my comment about whether or not you or your loved ones would care if someone ordered to kill you believed in that order when he carried it out. Regardless...he is the aggressor and loses sympathy for it. I have no moral problem making that statement.


The problem with war is that it ceases to be a personal conflict and becomes a national endeavor. If you wish to save someone at the risk or cost of your own life, that is your decision to make. The reality of war, however, is that we risk not ourselves, the people far away from such conflict, but others. We risk the lives of people we will likely never meet to save or help people we will likely never meet. We ask the families of people we will likely never meet to sacrifice their sons, daughters, lovers, and parents for OUR ideals. For OUR goals.
Leon On December 21, 2023




San Diego, California
#78New Post! Dec 17, 2018 @ 23:18:25
@Jennifer1984 Said


In my opinion, the UN has a greater role to play. Putting peacekeepers into areas of potential genocide puts a barrier between the innocents and their potential persecutors.... and giving them the power to arrest and detain the leaders of those organisations can also disrupt military operations. Cutting off the supply of weapons to those organisations is another way to reduce the scale of any conflict. This might take a massive logistical commitment but it can work and in my opinion might also prevent subsequent knock-on effects.

F'rinstance... the persecution of muslims during the Balkans Conflict of the 1990's was not adequately prosecuted. Thousands died at the hands of the Bosnian Serbs who slaughtered ethnic muslims. Even when peacekeepers were sent in, their Rules of Engagement gave them, in effect, no power to stop anything.
".


These actions typically have included/include the use of force.

I do agree with you, though, that we need to allow the UN to play a greater role in resolving such issues.
nooneinparticular On March 16, 2023




, Hawaii
#79New Post! Dec 17, 2018 @ 23:19:10
@chaski Said

So which definition of pacifism and which technique of pacifist response would be your go to definition & technique.

I apologize if you have already stated this answer, but I can't seem to sift through the other posts to get a specific direct answer.


Personally, I see some merit in a powerful army. Power in itself is not inherently averse to me. It's use is what matters. The thing about a big stick is that it can be used to protect yourself and others. The other thing about a big stick is that it can be used to harm others. One problem being that if your own philosophy is to have a weapon that you don't use, what happens if you're attacked? My answer is typically instigating a populist revolt. A dangerous gambit, but unless you plan on purging the conquered of all unsympathetic views, then a straight war typically has the same problems anyway.

If the question then becomes 'what is considered an unsympathetic view' then quite frankly it will completely derail this thread since that answer dives into the core of my beliefs and touches on many different issues on it's way down. It is also complicated.
Leon On December 21, 2023




San Diego, California
#80New Post! Dec 17, 2018 @ 23:25:43
@nooneinparticular Said

No, it was more designed to second guess the weights we place on all casualties. You say you have no sympathy for aggressors. Fair enough. Personally I view the unnecessary deaths of any person a waste, including aggressors. I acknowledge wholeheartedly that this is purely a personal feeling and consequentially it is of little use in a discussion of differing opinions. The main point I was trying to make, however, was that the death of a loved one touches many, and that damage carries on. Whether it be our own or the enemies, that damage carries on. You seemingly don't care about the damage caused to an enemy. Fair enough. But what of the damage caused to us in the process?




Just as pacifism must face the realities of the world and adapt, so too must the concept of a principled war. When you talk of evil that must be stopped, that is a casus belli based on principle. The problem being that waging such a war leaves no room for it's calculus. If we argue that 'one of the gravest evils' is to allow atrocity, then what do we make of the world we have now? In which atrocities go unstopped because the calculus of war deems it not worth the cost? If we argue that such calculus should not stand in our way, then the inevitable situation is one in which we wage ideological wars, regardless of their costs and our ability to end them. If we argue the opposite, that ultimately such calculus is more important than the reason for the war in the first place, then the principle we hold so dearly is simply an excuse. A convenient moral shield and nothing more. This is evident in how the world has treated the word genocide since WWII. Redefining upon redefining so the world is allowed to officially wash it's hands of tyrants.



The problem with war is that it ceases to be a personal conflict and becomes a national endeavor. If you wish to save someone at the risk or cost of your own life, that is your decision to make. The reality of war, however, is that we risk not ourselves, the people far away from such conflict, but others. We risk the lives of people we will likely never meet to save or help people we will likely never meet. We ask the families of people we will likely never meet to sacrifice their sons, daughters, lovers, and parents for OUR ideals. For OUR goals.


While this may ring true for causes that are suspect, such as the Vietnam and Iraq conflicts, I don’t think that there is any question as to the morality and/or nobility in trying to stop the likes of Hitler by force. It probably can be agreed almost universally who the fight against him was serving (as opposed to self-serving).
Erimitus On July 01, 2021




The mind of God, Antarctica
#81New Post! Dec 17, 2018 @ 23:30:28
@Leon Said

While this may ring true for causes that are suspect, such as the Vietnam and Iraq conflicts, I don’t think that there is any question as to the morality and/or nobility in trying to stop the likes of Hitler by force. It probably can be agreed almost universally who the fight against him was serving (as opposed to self-serving).



Didn't France and England declare war on German?
nooneinparticular On March 16, 2023




, Hawaii
#82New Post! Dec 17, 2018 @ 23:36:18
@Leon Said

While this may ring true for causes that are suspect, such as the Vietnam and Iraq conflicts, I don’t think that there is any question as to the morality and/or nobility in trying to stop the likes of Hitler by force. It probably can be agreed almost universally who the fight against him was serving (as opposed to self-serving).


Fair enough, but not all of humanity is motivated by the exact same sense of nobility and morality. The US is definitely not that homogeneous. Think not of wars for oil or ideology, but of the desire to live even at the expense of someone else's life. We could call this mindset selfish if you wish, but is such a mindset 'bad'?
Leon On December 21, 2023




San Diego, California
#83New Post! Dec 18, 2018 @ 02:49:23
@Erimitus Said

Didn't France and England declare war on German?


Yes, after the invasion of Poland. They were viewed as an aggressor and a threat at that point.
Leon On December 21, 2023




San Diego, California
#84New Post! Dec 18, 2018 @ 02:54:14
@nooneinparticular Said

Fair enough, but not all of humanity is motivated by the exact same sense of nobility and morality. The US is definitely not that homogeneous. Think not of wars for oil or ideology, but of the desire to live even at the expense of someone else's life. We could call this mindset selfish if you wish, but is such a mindset 'bad'?


I certainly don’t agree with what transpired in Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq. And I do believe in going through alternative efforts in stopping more blatant forms of aggression and human rights abuses by regimes before any consideration of force - which even then should be carried out by an international coalition rather than a single self-serving nation.
nooneinparticular On March 16, 2023




, Hawaii
#85New Post! Dec 20, 2018 @ 09:14:40
@Leon Said

I certainly don’t agree with what transpired in Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq. And I do believe in going through alternative efforts in stopping more blatant forms of aggression and human rights abuses by regimes before any consideration of force - which even then should be carried out by an international coalition rather than a single self-serving nation.


I've read this multiple times and I don't understand how this is a response to anything I said.
Erimitus On July 01, 2021




The mind of God, Antarctica
#86New Post! Dec 20, 2018 @ 11:44:46
It seems to me peace begins with intrapersonal relationships. When there is peace of mind interpersonal relationships are peaceful. When interpersonal relationship are peaceful then society, as a whole, is peaceful. When inter-societal relationships are peaceful then all is as it should be.
Jennifer1984 On July 20, 2022
Returner and proud





Penzance, United Kingdom
#87New Post! Dec 20, 2018 @ 12:26:34
@cole Said

I merely answered a question. It wasn't wrong either. Then you go into some nonsense about Ambalances? I also don't support anyone, nor do I have "any people" nor do I condone any behaviour on either side that detracts from the job at hand. I've clearly stated how i came to my decision and it wasn't swayed by the constant media drivel you keep using to back up your decision. If you wish to chat more about this message me directly instead of hijacking threads.


It's only media drivel when it shows your argument up in a bad light. If a Remain demonstration had done the same thing, you'd have been on it like a rash. And as for ME hijacking the thread... hey folks... go back down the line and see who posted first on that topic...!!

Sadly for you though, YOUR attempt to hijack the thread has failed dismally and I'm glad about that.

Enough of Cole's troublemaking agitation though.....



I've been sitting back and reading the comments on this thread as they've arisen and as with every discussion on the subject of warfare, no real conclusion is drawn and few.... if any... opinions have been changed.

Such is the way of things when we use an extreme for our discussion template.

As I've stated before... It's unfortunate that the extreme case of Hitler is always used and presented as the norm for any cause of conflict. There can be no doubt that WWII WAS the most extreme example of the human race going to war and the consequences of that decision.

Unfortunately, when that template is set down, the opinions become more polarised and less moderate. Those who view war as "inevitable" will argue that it is impossible to deal with any tyrant because they will assume (falsely) that every dictator or despot is another Hitler. They aren't. Some will set out only to oppress their own people rather than rule the world.... some will engage only in localised wars, over national boundaries or some such. Some will choose to attack an ideological enemy through guerilla tactics such as terrorism.

Those people are NOT Adolph Hitler. They have nothing remotely resembling the political apparatus, ambition, resources or resolve to attempt what he did.

Not every despotic regime is run by an Adolph Hitler and to conflate them as such is a falsehood that drags all conversations about conflict into an inextricable mire.

Not only this, but it is entirely backward-looking. Taking a time in history that is unchangeable and asking "What could we have done about it?" The question should be; "What would we have done if we had the facilities at our disposal that we have now?"

At least that argument is forward looking in that if.... heaven forbid... another genuine Hitler arose.... with the same political machinery.... with the same aims and ambitions.... and with a population that was as willing to follow him.... and with a military machine of similar power.... then we could reasonably take a line of action that would be effective in preventing a global conflagrations.

This is why I referred to the Cuban Missile Crisis. There was a despotic, superpower, driven by an extreme ideology, and with the massive military resources at its disposal, attempting an act of aggression that would surely have led to a global conflict the outcome of which would have been calamitous for the entire human race.

That situation was defused by diplomacy, not force of arms. This was the closest we have come to global conflict since the end of WWII and the Communist regime in the Soviet Union was as despotic, ambitious and aggressive as that of Nazi Germany. It is a fair comparison.

So, it can be seen that such circumstances... in the modern era.... CAN contain a tyrant. Whether or not quarantining Germany and then using diplomacy.... the soft word backed up by a big stick.... would have prevented WWII is a matter of opinion. That's all it can be. But I think it's a valid one.

In my opinion, it would certainly have prevented the invasion of Poland which was the trigger for Britain (not England) and France's declarations of war which was what gave Hitler the "legitimate" excuse he was looking for to let his armies loose on Europe.

All tyrants seek legitimacy for their actions. So don't give them one. Rather, contain them, then get them to the negotiating table, then dismantle their arguments one by one.

I know there will be a lot of "Whatiffery" to follow this. What if so and so did this?... what if such and such happened?..... what if the moon was made of cheese?

I'll indulge in a bit of Whatiffery of my own: What if we listen to their grievances.... find out what they want.... apologise and make redress for any hurts they have suffered.... attempt to come to a compromise that would give everybody at least something so that nobody loses face, nobody is humiliated, nobody gets nothing at all...

All this without a shot being fired.

I don't think it's impossible for smart people.... and diplomats are, usually smart people... to anticipate most scenarios although as Von Motke is alleged to have said "No plan ever survives first contact with the enemy." Then you have to be flexible. That's not impossible either.

But try not seeing them as an enemy in the first place, rather as people who can be reasoned with. But firmly, honestly and fairly.

I repeat... not every regime is run by a Hitler. Try to imagine that and base your reasoning on something less than the worst case scenario from a time when we didn't have what we have now.
Leon On December 21, 2023




San Diego, California
#88New Post! Dec 20, 2018 @ 14:14:20
@nooneinparticular Said

I've read this multiple times and I don't understand how this is a response to anything I said.


It was just a continuation of what I was saying in my previous post.
Leon On December 21, 2023




San Diego, California
#89New Post! Dec 20, 2018 @ 14:19:42
@Jennifer1984 Said

It's only media drivel when it shows your argument up in a bad light. If a Remain demonstration had done the same thing, you'd have been on it like a rash. And as for ME hijacking the thread... hey folks... go back down the line and see who posted first on that topic...!!

Sadly for you though, YOUR attempt to hijack the thread has failed dismally and I'm glad about that.

Enough of Cole's troublemaking agitation though.....



I've been sitting back and reading the comments on this thread as they've arisen and as with every discussion on the subject of warfare, no real conclusion is drawn and few.... if any... opinions have been changed.

Such is the way of things when we use an extreme for our discussion template.

As I've stated before... It's unfortunate that the extreme case of Hitler is always used and presented as the norm for any cause of conflict. There can be no doubt that WWII WAS the most extreme example of the human race going to war and the consequences of that decision.

Unfortunately, when that template is set down, the opinions become more polarised and less moderate. Those who view war as "inevitable" will argue that it is impossible to deal with any tyrant because they will assume (falsely) that every dictator or despot is another Hitler. They aren't. Some will set out only to oppress their own people rather than rule the world.... some will engage only in localised wars, over national boundaries or some such. Some will choose to attack an ideological enemy through guerilla tactics such as terrorism.

Those people are NOT Adolph Hitler. They have nothing remotely resembling the political apparatus, ambition, resources or resolve to attempt what he did.

Not every despotic regime is run by an Adolph Hitler and to conflate them as such is a falsehood that drags all conversations about conflict into an inextricable mire.

Not only this, but it is entirely backward-looking. Taking a time in history that is unchangeable and asking "What could we have done about it?" The question should be; "What would we have done if we had the facilities at our disposal that we have now?"

At least that argument is forward looking in that if.... heaven forbid... another genuine Hitler arose.... with the same political machinery.... with the same aims and ambitions.... and with a population that was as willing to follow him.... and with a military machine of similar power.... then we could reasonably take a line of action that would be effective in preventing a global conflagrations.

This is why I referred to the Cuban Missile Crisis. There was a despotic, superpower, driven by an extreme ideology, and with the massive military resources at its disposal, attempting an act of aggression that would surely have led to a global conflict the outcome of which would have been calamitous for the entire human race.

That situation was defused by diplomacy, not force of arms. This was the closest we have come to global conflict since the end of WWII and the Communist regime in the Soviet Union was as despotic, ambitious and aggressive as that of Nazi Germany. It is a fair comparison.

So, it can be seen that such circumstances... in the modern era.... CAN contain a tyrant. Whether or not quarantining Germany and then using diplomacy.... the soft word backed up by a big stick.... would have prevented WWII is a matter of opinion. That's all it can be. But I think it's a valid one.

In my opinion, it would certainly have prevented the invasion of Poland which was the trigger for Britain (not England) and France's declarations of war which was what gave Hitler the "legitimate" excuse he was looking for to let his armies loose on Europe.

All tyrants seek legitimacy for their actions. So don't give them one. Rather, contain them, then get them to the negotiating table, then dismantle their arguments one by one.

I know there will be a lot of "Whatiffery" to follow this. What if so and so did this?... what if such and such happened?..... what if the moon was made of cheese?

I'll indulge in a bit of Whatiffery of my own: What if we listen to their grievances.... find out what they want.... apologise and make redress for any hurts they have suffered.... attempt to come to a compromise that would give everybody at least something so that nobody loses face, nobody is humiliated, nobody gets nothing at all...

All this without a shot being fired.

I don't think it's impossible for smart people.... and diplomats are, usually smart people... to anticipate most scenarios although as Von Motke is alleged to have said "No plan ever survives first contact with the enemy." Then you have to be flexible. That's not impossible either.

But try not seeing them as an enemy in the first place, rather as people who can be reasoned with. But firmly, honestly and fairly.

I repeat... not every regime is run by a Hitler. Try to imagine that and base your reasoning on something less than the worst case scenario from a time when we didn't have what we have now.


Hitler is used as an example of when I believe violence may be necessary. Indeed, if the bar is lowered from that extreme, I would otherwise be inclined to agree with the alternative solutions you vouch for. It would be extreme, in my opinion, to apply such solutions to all situations, hence the need to bring up examples where it may not work and/or be reasonable.
mrmhead On March 27, 2024




NE, Ohio
#90New Post! Dec 20, 2018 @ 14:21:33
@Erimitus Said

It seems to me peace begins with intrapersonal relationships. When there is peace of mind interpersonal relationships are peaceful. When interpersonal relationship are peaceful then society, as a whole, is peaceful. When inter-societal relationships are peaceful then all is as it should be.


Peace - an end

Peace is a word
Of the sea and the wind.
Peace is a bird who sings
As you smile.
Peace is the love
Of a foe as a friend;
Peace is the love you bring
To a child

Searching for me
You look everywhere,
Except beside you.
Searching for you
You look everywhere,
But not inside you.

Peace is a stream
From the heart of a man;
Peace is a man, whose breadth
Is the dawn.
Peace is a dawn
On a day without end;
Peace is the end, like death
Of the war.

- Sinfield, Fripp
(King Crimson)
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   Random
Mon Feb 15, 2016 @ 17:25
13 1247
New posts   Poetry
Sun Jan 11, 2009 @ 07:46
0 835
New posts   Relationships
Tue Jul 22, 2008 @ 02:46
15 622
New posts   Teens
Thu Dec 21, 2006 @ 22:14
16 1067
New posts   Rap & Hip Hop
Wed Dec 13, 2006 @ 18:57
17 1592