|
|
|
|
I regret I might be acting provocatively (again). NW, I appreciate your commitment to non-violence, that this question is purely hypothetical and I have no answer to it, but how in the late 1930s would you have guaranteed the freedom of the European nations against Nazi Germany without the eventual armed intervention that became World War II?
Hugs
Nigel
[Updated on: Tue, 16 January 2007 17:37]
I dream of boys with big bulges in their trousers,
Never of girls with big bulges in their blouses.
…and look forward to meeting you in Cóito.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nigel wrote:
> I regret I might be acting provocatively (again). NW, I appreciate your commitment to non-violence, that this question is purely hypothetical and I have no answer to it, but how in the late 1930s would you have guaranteed the freedom of the European nations against Nazi Germany without the evntual armed intervention that became World War II?
Happy to answer it, as I think my position is sometimes misunderstood.
Well, I wouldn't have started from there - I would have not indulged in the vengeful fiasco called the "Treaty of Versailles" at the conclusion of the "War to End War". Though the actual economic effects of this Treaty can be debated, the effect on the sentiment of Germans seems very clear-cut. Probably not an entirely satisfactory reply, I know.
But that really underlies my whole reason for being a pacifist. Whenever a "solution" is imposed by force, it will tend to a) legitimate the view of the use of force as "successful" in the eyes of both "victors" and "vanquished", and b) store up resentments in the "vanquished" that they feel can "successfully" (even if not always legitimately) be solved by violence. That gives rise to the cycle of violence that my current signature quote refers to. I see this as true both on a personal level and on the level of nations. I really genuinely do see "fighting for peace" as at least as inherently absurd as "fucking for chastity".
This probably derives from my conviction that wars result from social and economic factors (although the timing and nature of the conflict is determined by the personalties involved as much as anything, those personalities do not gain influence and positions of power unless social and economic factors are favourable to their views).
So, it not enough to be a passive pacifist! The peace pledge makes that explicit : "War is a crime against humanity. I renounce war, and am therefore determined not to support any kind of war. I am also determined to work for the removal of all causes of war."
For me, that means (amongst other things) trying to help reduce inequalities between people and nations, to recognise other traditions and belief-structures, and to use my purchasing power as an individual to try to avoid contributing to the profits of companies that I feel are exploitative. I don't claim that I always manage to live up to my ideals in this (or any other) respect ...
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars." Martin Luther King
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Brian1507a
|
 |
Getting started |
Location: USA
Registered: January 2007
Messages: 8
|
|
|
If WW2 had not happened the French and British would be speaking German. Im sorry and this sounds uppity, but the British Government was ready to move to Canada just befor the US became involved. Does anyone think that Hitler would have responded to love and roses. I dont think so, the only thing he understood was force and violence. Just like the japanese, Hitler woke the sleeping giant and paid the price.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Brian1507a
|
|
Getting started |
Location: USA
Registered: January 2007
Messages: 8
|
|
|
By the way NW, I think your stand on nonviolence is brave and a light for all of us to follow. Unfortunately the rest of humanity seems to lack this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Brian - welcome back
I don't think that Hitler would have risen to any position of power in Germany if the settlement after WW1 had been seen as rather fairer.
And, actually, I don't think we'd all now be speaking German: it seems to me that the Third Reich was fundamentally unstable in that it relied on continuous conquest, and it would have fallen apart once it had reached the limits of what it could conquer (I think it had already passed the limits of what it could effectively administer). But it is now nearly 27 years since I studied 20th-century history, and I'm happy to admit that my understanding of this may be flawed.
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars." Martin Luther King
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Brian1507a wrote:
> By the way NW, I think your stand on nonviolence is brave and a light for all of us to follow. Unfortunately the rest of humanity seems to lack this.
Thanks, Brian. I do what I do - if it makes anyone else stop and think a bit, that's great, but otherwise I just have to do what I believe in.
And I do very much understand that not everyone thinks as I do (grin). As I believe the route to peace is through not giving anyone anything to fight over, it's going to take a lot longer than my lifetime to get there!
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars." Martin Luther King
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Brian1507a
|
|
Getting started |
Location: USA
Registered: January 2007
Messages: 8
|
|
|
I agree that the settlment after WW1 was unjust and cruel and really upset the Germans. Hitler told the German people what they wanted to hear. If he had not been curtailed he had his eyes set on America and already had operatives in South America. Remember, even after we came into the war, we had to work tripple time to catch up to the war effort, so we wernt preparing ourselves for an invasion by Germany.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks, NW. I want to read you answer again later before attempting any reply.
Hugs
N
I dream of boys with big bulges in their trousers,
Never of girls with big bulges in their blouses.
…and look forward to meeting you in Cóito.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
 |
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13796
|
|
|
That you are right about the fact that actually WW1 only ended with the close of WW2 (and actually ended on the day the Germany we fought was unified again after the collapse of the cold war etc) all pacificist solutions have to start somewhere.
So, taking the conditions that obtained in the 1930s as fact and a datum point, what could be done at that point by force-free actions?
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have read the posts here and most have grasped the problem with being a pacifist. I think that every one of us on this site would not want to harm anyone, but what do you do when others are determined to either harm or totally control you leaving you with no freedom?
I think that most people need something to push them quite a lot in order to use deadly force on someone. Well, most people, but not all of course. The basic thing that sometimes is missing from the pacifist belief is that there is evil in the world and that is not a minor point; many times good people have had to rise up against a threat to their lives and freedom.
I really want to see us all get along and I am perfectly willing to give up a lot of my feedoms so that can happen. I can subdue myself in order that we have peace and if everone would do the same, I dont think we would have to worry about war. The guys who responded to your question all had much the same thing to say and I agree with them.
Even in sports there are sometimes "sore winners" who are not simply going to be satisfied they won the game, but have to act vindictively and mean to the loser. When it occurs the way it did after WWI it is no wonder that we had to have WWII.
Ken
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy wrote:
> That you are right about the fact that actually WW1 only ended with the close of WW2 (and actually ended on the day the Germany we fought was unified again after the collapse of the cold war etc) all pacificist solutions have to start somewhere.
>
> So, taking the conditions that obtained in the 1930s as fact and a datum point, what could be done at that point by force-free actions?
I'm absolutely not an expert on the inter-war period: I'm getting on in years, but I really am not that old (grin). But the Lausanne Conference might be a good place to start ... but I really don't want to get into specifics on a particular historic period that I have not studied for very many years.
If force is so great, at what point would you have declared war in order to minimise casualties? and why? (rhetorical question - don't feel obliged to answer).
Incidentally, we have JUST finished paying for World War Two - the last instalment of the lend/lease repayments from the UK to the USA were paid at the start of the month. Don't you just HATE doing war on the hire purchase scheme? Never mind, I suppose that it does make the war in Iraq a little more affordable now ...
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars." Martin Luther King
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
 |
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
... I thought that, in the broader context, that was where they belonged.
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Living where I do and having very firm views on the question of preventive and retaliatory measures, I am not going to participate in this thread, because anything that I write might be considered inflamatory by one side or the other - and I consider those taking part in this thread to be my friends.
J F R
The paradox has often been noted that the United States, founded in secularism, is now the most religiose country in Christendom, while England, with an established church headed by its constitutional monarch, is among the least. (Richard Dawkins, 2006)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't think there is much disagreement among historians about the causes of the Second World War, but my question set out a starting position of the real situation in Europe post 1937. Chamberlain's piece of paper from Munich demonstrated the futility of negotiation. The argument there is whether he was taken in by Hitler by the Munich agreement or whether he saw the inevitable and that was the start of preparations for war in Great Britain.
Hugs
N
I dream of boys with big bulges in their trousers,
Never of girls with big bulges in their blouses.
…and look forward to meeting you in Cóito.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nigel wrote:
Chamberlain's piece of paper from Munich demonstrated the futility of negotiation. The argument there is whether he was taken in by Hitler by the Munich agreement or whether he saw the inevitable and that was the start of preparations for war in Great Britain.
Negotiation is never futile when both sides participate in good faith. The problem is that sometimes 'the other side' refuses to negotiate and at other times negotiates in bad faith. It is then that a show of determination (and even force) suggests itself.
Hitler never intended to honour his peace commitments. Although it sounds very passé, Hitler was a tyrant: he would take by force whatever he was permitted to take by force. WWII could have been prevented when Hitler marched his troops into the Rhineland, from which they had been excluded by the treaty of Versailles. In his book "The Rise And Fall Of The Third Reich" William Shirer quotes Hitler on this matter. On giving the instruction to the Wehrmacht to re-occupy the Rhineland he told them that they were to march in, but if Britain and France made the slightest murmer they were to march straight out again.
The silence on British and French statesmen showed Hitler that he could get away with it - and if you can get away with it, why not?
The paradox has often been noted that the United States, founded in secularism, is now the most religiose country in Christendom, while England, with an established church headed by its constitutional monarch, is among the least. (Richard Dawkins, 2006)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I would like to expand my thoughts concerning Hitler's re-militarization of the Rhineland in 1936. There follow three quotations taken from the Internet:
1.
The treaty of Versailles also specified the de-militarization of the entire area to provide a buffer between Germany ... and France ... on the other side, which meant, that no German forces were allowed there after the Allied forces had withdrawn... In violation of the Treaty of Versailles and the spirit of the Locarno Pact, Nazi Germany reoccupied the Rhineland on Saturday, March 7, 1936. The occupation was done with very little military force, the troops entering on bicycles, and could easily have been stopped had it not been for the appeasement mentality of post-war Europe... Hitler took a risk when he sent his troops to the Rhineland. He told them to 'turn back and not to resist' if they were stopped by the French Army. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhineland#Following_the_First_World_War)
2.
Heinz Guderian, a German general interviewed by French officers after the Second World War, claimed: "If you French had intervened in the Rhineland in 1936 we should have been sunk and Hitler would have fallen". Hitler himself later said: "The forty-eight hours after the march into the Rhineland were the most nerve-racking in my life. If the French had then marched into the Rhineland we would have had to withdraw with our tails between our legs, for the military resources at our disposal would have been wholly inadequate for even a moderate resistance." (http://www.answers.com/topic/remilitarization-of-the-rhineland)
3.
The total estimated human loss of life caused by World War II, irrespective of political alignment, was roughly 62 million people. The civilian toll was around 37 million, the military toll about 25 million. The Allies lost around 51 million people, and the Axis lost 11 million. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties)
So, because Britain and France did not stand up to Hitler in 1936 - just as small show of force would have been all that was necessary - by 1945 62,000,000 people were dead - more than half of them civilians and more than 80% of them were on the Allied side. What price appeasement and pacificism?
The paradox has often been noted that the United States, founded in secularism, is now the most religiose country in Christendom, while England, with an established church headed by its constitutional monarch, is among the least. (Richard Dawkins, 2006)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As I said above, I really don't want to get into specifics on a particular historic period that I have not studied for very many years.
It's not that I've run out of things to say on the subject - far from it - but I'm not going into a discussion on WW2 on this forum: it is too raw in peoples memories.
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars." Martin Luther King
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for the links, JFR.
As a young student I was, hesitantly, inclined towards pacifism. In 1968 the Soviet Union invaded Czechoslovakia, and Alexandr Dubcek and other moderate leaders were drugged and whisked off to Moscow. This event convinced me that pacifism has its obvious limits, and that there are tyrants who can only be disarmed and rendered harmless by force.
Of course, the use of force doesn't solve all problems, and I am very much against senseless use of arms, and the present US administration's reluctance to use diplomacy is both highly unintelligent and counterproductive.
Obviously, appeasement diplomacy' didn't work against Hitler, and it doesn't work against any sociopath. But even the most hideous villain may admit that it's in his own interest to back down if he is looking into a gun barrel.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
I think that I must agree with JFR in principle, although it could be argued that the sequence of events was less clear-cut than he implies.
His posts illustrate perhaps the most basic reason why, despite my distaste for violence and war, I cannot be a pacifist.
There is a bewhiskered British joke with many regional variations; the Tyneside version is as follows. A visitor to Tyneside took a wrong turning and found himself in Byker. Being thoroughly lost, he stopped and asked a local Geordie how he should find his way to Gosforth Park. Geordie thought for a minute, scratched his head, and said "Well, if ye gan doon yon road and tak the thord tornin' on the reet ... nah, that's nee good ..." He had another try. "If ye gan back the way ye cyem, and tak the forst left at the roondaboot ... nah, that's nee good either". Twice more Geordie tried and failed. In the end, totally frustrated, he turned to the perplexed motorist and said "Why, hinnie, if aa wanted te gan te Gosforth Park, aa wadn't start from Byker!"
It's not difficult, in retrospect, to point to things that could and should have been done differently. The problem is that crises must be faced in real time. Those who have to confront them are metaphorically in Byker; they have to address the situation as it exists. Regardless of what had gone before, the only relevant consideration in September 1939 was the implication of Hitler's invasion of Poland.
Pacifist analysts tends to focus upon the origins of a conflict. They are perfectly right to do so; many conflicts could have been avoided if politicians had been more perceptive and less inclined to ignore anything which would be a drain on their budget, and we should all try to learn from past mistakes. But what does a group do if it is attacked? There is no mileage in bemoaning past errors, which may in any event have been the fault of others. Faced with severe violence from an oppressor, I cannot bring myself to accept that it could ever be reasonable to expect the oppressed group to rule out violent opposition as an option.
War is never desirable. It should never be considered other than as a last resort. But - or so I would argue - it cannot be ruled out as an option of last resort. Humanity is still far from perfection and to submit to violence without practical and effective resistance will, to refer to JFR's second ethical principle, inevitably allow evil to triumph.
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie wrote:
> A visitor to Tyneside took a wrong turning and found himself in Byker. Being thoroughly lost,
This analogy doesn't hold up. The situation you're suggesting (for a pacifist to suddenly assume responsibility in 1939) would be like being parachuted naked and blindfolded into Byker! Things don't exist without a path there ...
Now, if I were suddenly parachuted into Byker, or 1939, or whatever, my responses would not include violence. It is that simple.
------------------
A couple of things on a more general note:
I strongly prefer NOT to discuss hypothetical courses of action at an artificial point in 1939 - I believe that it is impossible to do so without causing major upsets and deep offence to people here. Similarly, I would ask that people respect my position enough to be careful not to imply that being a pacifist in 1939 would be in some sense to be complicit in the horrors perpetuated by the Third Reich ... I hope that my opposition to the principles and actions of that appalling regime is very clear.
Can I remind everyone that Holocaust Memorial Day is coming up shortly, and this years theme is "The Dignity of Difference". Information on events and exhibitions in the UK is on the UK HMD website http://www.hmd.org.uk/
The actual day is Saturday 27th January (the anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz), but for religious and practical reasons many events are being held on the days before or after.
[Updated on: Thu, 18 January 2007 11:17]
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars." Martin Luther King
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
First I have to say there is a vast distance between appeasement and pacifism. It is for me, not black and white, and I don’t think anyone in this day and age could reasonable say there is no point at which I would never take up arms. My goal is to try to find ways to, if not illuminate, at least limit the need for armed conflict. It has been most ably demonstrated here that we have a great deal of retrospective knowledge to draw from to help us find ways to better deal with the possibility of armed conflict.
I wonder if I am just being naïve, but I have to ask, can we not trace the source of most acts of war to two really basic things. The first one that comes to my mind is religious philosophical disagreements. The other is just basic resources and there distribution. I’m just kind of looking for root causes then looking for solutions in ascending complexity as I go. As to dealing with despots and sociopaths, well, they do exist. I often think that’s another thing the US government needs to take responsibility for, at least in the case of Hussein; if they hadn’t been playing him of against the Iranians, things would not be as bad in that region as they are now. Then that is just a good example of how complicated things can get in this day and age when we are not totally aware of motives, and why we the people of the world nee to question our governments more closely.
As I keep saying, it’s easy enough to see the wrong that has gone before us and interpret it to death. The hard part is to find ways to right wrongs peacefully without letting our selves be run over at the same time. Am I just a dreamer? LOL if so, no one wake me up OK.
Visualize Whirled Peas. : )
People will tell you where they've gone
They'll tell you where to go
But till you get there yourself you never really know
Where some have found their paradise
Other's just come to harm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
My comments were not directed against anybody on this board or against anybody's weltanschauung - and certainly not against NW, because while I can't agree with his philosophy I can certainly admire it.
My comments were intended to point out that inaction can often lead to disastrous consequences. In the case under discussion no violence would have been needed at all: a warning of swift reaction would prbably have sufficed. Contemporary events teach us that also action, when ill-conceived, can lead to disastrous results. The modern world just does not seem able to produce leaders with positive charisma coupled with intelligence and uprightness. Now, that isn;t too much to ask for, is it?
J F R
The paradox has often been noted that the United States, founded in secularism, is now the most religiose country in Christendom, while England, with an established church headed by its constitutional monarch, is among the least. (Richard Dawkins, 2006)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
arich wrote:
can we not trace the source of most acts of war to two really basic things. The first one that comes to my mind is religious philosophical disagreements. The other is just basic resources and there distribution.
You may be right. But something in my head keeps telling me that that was once true but is not necessarily valid any longer. It seems to me that what is the cause of all wars post-1970-ish is the imposition - or the perceived imposition - of a set of values and way of life on a people that wants for itself different values or a different way of life. To some peoples America and her gang of friends are seen as a bully forcing their values on others. (Of course, oil and capital are mixed up in it, but they are seen as 'also rans'.)
Just my twopennyworth.
J F R
The paradox has often been noted that the United States, founded in secularism, is now the most religiose country in Christendom, while England, with an established church headed by its constitutional monarch, is among the least. (Richard Dawkins, 2006)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
JFR, I take it as read that we respect each other, and count each other friends!
JFR wrote:
> The modern world just does not seem able to produce leaders with positive charisma coupled with intelligence and uprightness. Now, that isn;t too much to ask for, is it?
The problem is, I think, that in the UK and USA (and most other "democracies"), a politician needs to get the support of big business in order to get enough money to buy enough public attention to be seen as "credible" or "electable". That inevitably means making compromises and not rocking the boat ... which rather rules out anyone with charisma, intelligence and integrity.
Unfortunately, I don't really have an answer to the problem.
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars." Martin Luther King
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NW wrote:
The problem is, I think, that in the UK and USA (and most other "democracies"), a politician needs to get the support of big business in order to get enough money to buy enough public attention to be seen as "credible" or "electable". That inevitably means making compromises and not rocking the boat ... which rather rules out anyone with charisma, intelligence and integrity.
If you hadn't written this I would never have dared to write what I am going to write, because I am certain that I am going to be misunderstood. Democracy is our problem. It's not the concept of democracy itself, but the democratic method(s) that we have adopted. We have a system in which he who would be elected has to stand up and say "I am the best, vote for me. The others are rubbish." Only someone who is mediocre or worse can do such a thing.
Confucius said (and he really did, in the Analects) that the person most suitable to rule others is he who would rather be excused.
Unfortunately, I don't really have an answer to the problem.
Nor me neither. 
J F R
The paradox has often been noted that the United States, founded in secularism, is now the most religiose country in Christendom, while England, with an established church headed by its constitutional monarch, is among the least. (Richard Dawkins, 2006)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree with you 100% and that from a former elected official.
Gary
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
... I think you missed my point, or maybe I wasn't sufficiently explicit.
What I meant was that the government in power in September 1939 had to make a decision, regardless of whether it was responsible for the policies of earlier years. Even if it had been responsible, individual ministers had changed. That decision had to be made in the light of the situation at that time.
There are innumerable avenues of speculation as to what might have happened if we had NOT gone to war, but speculation is not fact. There seems to be a very high probability that the UK would have either been invaded or forced by economic pressure into some form of alliance - see Robert Harris' best-selling thriller 'Fatherland' for a possible scenario. On as detached a view as I can take, I cannot see that on balance of probability the death-toll in the European theatre of war would have been reduced, though no doubt the balance between civilian and military deaths would have been markedly different.
I am confused by the latter part of your post. I do not see the logic of commemorating the holocaust if we are not prepared to discuss the war. In fact, it doesn't bother me too much that there are those who deny the holocaust, because we are not discussing some event in the distant past, and there is ample evidence gathered from eye-witnesses who were not Jewish to discredit those who adopt the politics of denial. Nevertheless, whilst accepting that the British, in their inimitable way, made a complete cock-up of the issue, there are fully legitimate arguments both for and against the post-war concept of Zionism.
I simply do not understand why you consider that some kind of censorship should apply. Surely we all, always, have the right to seek the truth, even if the truth we find is not necessarily to our liking?
That said, NW, you are one of the most principled guys I have ever known. Nothing I may EVER say implies any criticism of you as an individual; our disagreements are simply a matter of academic philosophy.
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie wrote:
> ... I think you missed my point, or maybe I wasn't sufficiently explicit.
>
> What I meant was that the government in power in September 1939 had to make a decision, regardless of whether it was responsible for the policies of earlier years. Even if it had been responsible, individual ministers had changed. That decision had to be made in the light of the situation at that time.
I cannot conceive of a situation where I would suddenly participate in such a government. It isn't a situation I can possibly relate to. It's like asking me what I'd do if I woke up tomorrow to discover that I'd made a 12-year-old schoolgirl pregnant! I simply have neither the detailed information about the circumstances, nor a sufficient empathy for the hypothetical situation to make any sensible answer.
> There are innumerable avenues of speculation as to what might have happened if we had NOT gone to war, but speculation is not fact. There seems to be a very high probability that the UK would have either been invaded or forced by economic pressure into some form of alliance - see Robert Harris' best-selling thriller 'Fatherland' for a possible scenario. On as detached a view as I can take, I cannot see that on balance of probability the death-toll in the European theatre of war would have been reduced, though no doubt the balance between civilian and military deaths would have been markedly different.
the phrase "I cannot see that on balance of probability the death-toll in the European theatre of war would have been reduced hits the area that I do not want to discuss in detail. It involves just too many cans of worms, and we just don't have the distance to judge the effects rationally. As we seem to be discussing war on an essentially pragmatic level, I think we need a detachment that it is not yet possible to have on this particular conflict.
I would be interested to know why non-pacifists seem unable to ever come up with any scenario apart from WW2 - it isn't exactly the only war the world has even seen. And from the point of view of seeing the effects of actions, it would clearly be useful to be in a position to make an estimate of the actual effects of the actions taken on the following couple of centuries.
> I am confused by the latter part of your post. I do not see the logic of commemorating the holocaust if we are not prepared to discuss the war.
The HMD "Statement of Purpose" in full (see http://www.hmd.org.uk/about/statement_of_purpose_0000/ )
1.Recognise that the Holocaust was a tragically defining episode of the 20th Century, a crisis for European civilisation and a universal catastrophe for humanity.
2.Provide a national mark of respect for all victims of Nazi persecution and demonstrate understanding with all those who still suffer its consequences.
3.Raise awareness and understanding of the events of the Holocaust as a continuing issue of fundamental importance for all humanity.
4.Ensure that the horrendous crimes, racism and victimisation committed during the Holocaust are neither forgotten nor repeated, whether in Europe or elsewhere in the world.
5.Restate the continuing need for vigilance in light of the troubling repetition of human tragedies in the world today.
6.Reflect on more recent atrocities that raise similar issues.
7.Provide a national focus for educating subsequent generations about the Holocaust and the continued relevance of the lessons that are learnt from it.
8.Provide an opportunity to examine our nations past and learn for the future.
9.Promote a democratic and tolerant society, free of the evils of prejudice, racism and other forms of bigotry.
10.Support the view that all citizens-without distinction-should participate freely and fully in the economic, social and public life of the nation.
11.Highlight the values of a tolerant and diverse society based upon the notions of universal dignity and equal rights and responsibilities for all its citizens.
12.Assert a continuing commitment to oppose racism, anti-semitism, victimisation and genocide.
Support our shared aspirations with both our European partners and the wider international community centred on the ideals of peace, justice and community for all.
I find them entirely consistent with the peace pledge, and in particular to the second section: "I am also determined to work for the removal of all causes of war." The reason that I stopped (in 2005) being actively involved in staffing a local HMD exhibition was the reluctance of some others in the local group to put the principles of 9, 10, 11 into practice: HMD is something that I strongly support.
{snip - sorry, cossie!}
> I simply do not understand why you consider that some kind of censorship should apply. Surely we all, always, have the right to seek the truth, even if the truth we find is not necessarily to our liking?
I hope that I was asking for some kind of self-denying approach rather than advocating censorship! As I've said, this area is too close and too raw: it has not yet passed into history, and it has resonances in the past experiences of many of us. I'm trying to strike the balance between being willing to defend my views on non-violence, and getting into areas that result in massive upsets for people.
> That said, NW, you are one of the most principled guys I have ever known. Nothing I may EVER say implies any criticism of you as an individual; our disagreements are simply a matter of academic philosophy.
Thanks, cossie: you know the feeling is reciprocated. And this rather underlines why I am so unhappy about using WW2 as an example of the general principle of violence / non-violence: we are still so close to it that I (and almost certainly others) just cannot see it with appropriately academic detachment.
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars." Martin Luther King
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It’s simple really, eliminate lobbying and make sure people have the power to impeach any political representative that even appears to be working for a special interest. Though it may be problematic at this point, we were warned about letting the military industrial complex get a foot hold in the halls of power. Sighs, I wish I could ask Diogenes if he ever found an honest man. LOL I can’t even give up my car much less live in a tub.
People will tell you where they've gone
They'll tell you where to go
But till you get there yourself you never really know
Where some have found their paradise
Other's just come to harm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NW wrote:
>I would be interested to know why non-pacifists seem unable to ever come up with any scenario apart from WW2 - it isn't exactly the only war the world has even seen."
Because it is in the ken of so many of us alive today and because we are to some extent still living with its consequences.
>Provide a national mark of respect for all victims of Nazi persecution and demonstrate understanding with all those who still suffer its consequences.<
Why are we obsessed with just the Holcaust. We forget or choose to ignore Stalin's 20 million victims. I think the answer to both questions is similar.
Hugs
Nigel
I dream of boys with big bulges in their trousers,
Never of girls with big bulges in their blouses.
…and look forward to meeting you in Cóito.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
huwar
|
|
Getting started |
Registered: May 2004
Messages: 13
|
|
|
Coming rather late to this discussion but here are a some observations may seem relevant I am fully in agreement with NW. There is little evidence to suggest that violence leads to anything more than renewed violence whether on the personal or national level. I am unaware of any sustained effort for peace to match, let us say, the effort that went in to the Napoleonic Wars. The Marshall Plan comes close but it was dropped when those in command lost interest.
To take a specific situation as justification for war leads to error - the "what if" excuse is just speculation. That there were many pacificists engaged as non-combatants in WWII I can avouch - thanks to the Blimps (does that date me?) they were usually of low rank and in dangerous positions.
We, the Western world, were well aware war was coming in the thirties but our leaders chose to say otherwise, they had other onions on their plates and the people accepted their assurances. If you have trouble accepting that, recall the widely believed claims the British and American concurred with before the recent imperial adventures.
Esch one of us can do something about putting an end to violence. As individuals we can eschew it in our daily lives, we can vocally oppose authority's use of it, we can question our teachers', entertainers', and informers' adulation of it. In this rowdy world most of us have at least one opportunity a day to intervene for peace.
Maybe this Board/Forum is a good example of how to keep the peace.
hugh
don't ask the way to peace; peace is the way
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What do people do when the military forces of a previously friendly neighbour invade their country, imposing a regime of oppression and torture. The people have tried to stay out of the war, but their neutrality is brutally violated. They may use passive and unarmed resistance, or they may start building up a secret armed force, aided by friends from the outside.
Who is in the position to judge them, for whichever method of resistance they choose in order to oppose the intruder, and eventually throw him out?
A few years ago I had a Bosnian pupil who had been in a Serbian concentration camp together with his father. Once they had to watch the Serbian guards playing football with the head of a dead inmate. If any of us had been in a situation similar to that, wouldn't we resort to any method which would effectively put an end the madness?
Dietrich Bonhoeffer was a key leader of the 'Confessing Church', which strongly opposed Nazi Germany's anti-semitic policies. He joined a group within the Military Intelligence who planned to overthrow the Nazi regime by killing Hitler, and was affiliated with the group which unsuccessfully tried to assassinate Hitler in July 1944. To him killing Hitler would be a moral action, in accord with his Christian belief, in order to put an end to the madness of the Third Reich. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonhoeffer). Bonhoeffer was hanged in the Flossenbürg concentration camp on 9 April 1945.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sailor wrote:
> What do people do when the military forces of a previously friendly neighbour invade their country, imposing a regime of oppression and torture. The people have tried to stay out of the war, but their neutrality is brutally violated. They may use passive and unarmed resistance, or they may start building up a secret armed force, aided by friends from the outside.
Absolutely. They have a choice of ways they choose to resist. And, of course, trying to stay out of a war is a very different thing from working actively to remove the causes of war ...
> Who is in the position to judge them, for whichever method of resistance they choose in order to oppose the intruder, and eventually throw him out?
"Judge" is a bit of an emotive word here, and of very imprecise meaning. Speaking purely personally, I would say (pragmatically) that violent resistance may well not be in the long-term best interests. I would say that according to my own moral perspective, killing anyone is just plain wrong. I may say that I think those who choose violence are giving violence a legitimacy that I do not believe it should be accorded. Despite all that, I do not in any way believe that those who do not choose the route of non-violence are all evil people, as I hope I've made clear!
> A few years ago I had a Bosnian pupil who had been in a Serbian concentration camp together with his father. Once they had to watch the Serbian guards playing football with the head of a dead inmate. If any of us had been in a situation similar to that, wouldn't we resort to any method which would effectively put an end the madness?
The question is, what is the method that each of us believes most effectively puts a permanent end to all "such madness". Just because I believe that this is a different route to the route chosen by some others here, doesn't make any of us less concerned to put that end to that madness!
I cannot stress too highly that a non-violent approach does not in any way imply an unwillingness to take action (nor to avoid placing oneself at physical risk if that is necessary).
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars." Martin Luther King
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>I may say that I think those who choose violence are giving violence a legitimacy that I do not believe it should be accorded.
This is a very strong statement. Norway was attacked by Germany in 1940, after having declared herself neutral. During the war, new army, air and navy forces were established and trained in Sweden, Britain and Canada. In May 1945 they secured stability and made sure that no retaliations took place against Germans or Norwegian Nazis. By being armed to their teeth they saved lots of lives on both sides.
In a war, or when mass murders take place like those in Srebrenica, I don't agree that using weapons to stop the perpetrators is equal to giving violence a legitimacy. In April 1993 UN declared Srebrenica a protected safe area, but despite attempts to negotiate a peace agreement, Ratko Mladic and his Serbian forces started rounding up civilians to "create an unbearable situation of total insecurity with no hope of further survival or life for the inhabitants of Srebrenica."
I don't know how Mladic could have been stopped except by a heavily armed force, and it would have had to be a lot stronger than the 400 Dutch peacekeepers, who were in fact taken hostage by Mladic. By not stopping him the UN gave Mladic and his killers a de facto legitimacy, and since then he has been protected by the Serbian state.
>I would say that according to my own moral perspective, killing anyone is just plain wrong.
I second that, both in principle and in practice. I do respect your views and honestly wish I could follow you, because I realize that saying a qualified yes to killing people leaves me with a terrible dilemma. Not only because killing is wrong, in principle, but also because there's always the risk that the trigger is pulled for no reason, as when allied aircraft firebombed the city of Dresden in February 1945, with the loss of between 25.000 and 140.000 lives.
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
|
] 
A Place of Safety
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
