Pacifism for practical rather than idealistic reasons?

Hitler involved himself in the Spanish civil war on the side of fascism, consistent with his belief that people should be ruled by strong, benevolent dictators.

But back to the point of pragmatic pacifism. I believe that in a world that is based on something other than the realpolitico-pragmatism of "might makes right" (e.g. the Bush administration) there need to be limiting conditions for war.

There will never be limiting conditions on waging war to defend a country's borders other than the simple limitation of a country's ability to put up a defense. People will always respond to invasion no matter how much they hate their own government (e.g. the Soviet Union under Stalin). No government can be counted on to take into account the possibility of saving lives by allowing its people to live under foreign occupation, unless it sees no hope of winning (e.g. France after Hitler's invasion in WW2).

But purely in terms of valuing the lives of its own citizens, a government that wages a war of aggression (e.g. invading Iraq) for spurious reasons of national security must hate its own people.

 

It sounds as though the most the English or the French government could say to get their citizens in a war frenzy is, "Hitler might come after you next! Better get him before he gets you!"

Errr... but if the evidence points in that direction, then this is not an unreasonable position to take. Again, Hitler had torn up treaties, and thrown his weight around Europe annexing countries left and right. I think it was hardly a stretch of the imagination to realise he would have eventually gone for the UK and France. The leaders of those countries came to the - quite reasonable - assumption that Hitler was an immediate threat to them, and declaring war sooner rather than later was the better option.

If I had been an Englishman or a Frenchman, I would have yawned and gone back to my novel.


ANd of course, many did - your views certainly weren't unfashionable in the late '30's

Many people today view 1930s and 1940s Europe through modern day spectacles that essentially say that Hitler was the devil incarnate, uniquely evil. In actuality, he was simply one of many murderous dictators.


And? He was the most dangerous of them, and could fairly have been judged to pose a risk to the western democracies.

It's instructive to look at Hitler through the eyes of his contemporaries in the western media

Why? The fascists had lots of apologists - doesn't make them any less of a threat. It was this kind of attitude that allowed the third reich to become such a threat...

Hitler disregarded any treaty that the Germans signed that withheld from Germany any land that used to be part of Germany a mere 20 years ago.

That's maybe, but he didn't exactly stop at just 'German' lands, or with people who wanted to be German though.

As an Englishman or a Frenchman, that wouldn't have worried me in the slightest

And it didn't many people. Many people of the time felt that Germany had been unjustly treated, which it had. But the Nazi idealogy was not one just of redressing wrongs, but of asserting the dominance of the master race. This aspect of the regime was known at the time, and it was perfectly reasonable for the west to assume that this meant dominance over them. Again, hindsight backs up this opinion.

I would have figured it was only a matter of time before Germany took back what the Allies took from it.

And? Are you arguing that it was unfair of the allies to object, or not in their best interest? It may have been unfair, but it does not mean that it was in there best interests to allow Germany to do it...

I mean, come on. Suppose France took Cornwall from England in 1984, and you read in tomorrow's news that England took it back.

What's that got to do with anything? I'm sure us and the French would fear each other in that situation.

I do not know why Germany attacked Russia.


Living space and resources, which the Nazis openly declared was their objective at the time. This was not about regaining lost lands, but conquering new.

fact, I would probably be pleased that the two monsters named Hitler and Stalin were destroying each other.

Indeed, that is what many would have wanted. However, the alliance between Hitler and Stalin seemed to have put paid to that idea at the start of the war.

If I were Russian, I certainly wouldn't have defended Stalin from Hitler. If Hitler wanted to displace Stalin's government, my attitude would have been, "He's welcome to it."

Did you read my previous post? As I said, initially the Ukranians and others welcomed the Nazis as liberators. But the Nazis treated them so appallingly, they were forced to rise up in arms against him. As I said, the Germans viewed the Slavs as an inferior race, and had planned to enslave and exterminate them...

But back to the point of pragmatic pacifism. I believe that in a world that is based on something other than the realpolitico-pragmatism of "might makes right" (e.g. the Bush administration) there need to be limiting conditions

 

Anidanami124, nobody cared about the Jews back in the 30s and 40s. As far as the Allies were concerned, they weren't even on the radar. In fact, NONE of the Allied governments (including England and the US) would permit the Jewish refugees to come to their shores. Ironically, the only countries that welcomed Jewish refugees were Iran and the Arab countries.

Also, I'm bewildered that you wrote, "When you let your voice be heard the government will listen." Come now, do you really think Bush will withdraw his troops from Iraq if I ask nicely?


Jabbadabbado wrote: "a government that wages a war of aggression (e.g. invading Iraq) for spurious reasons of national security must hate its own people."

Exactly so.


Foofaspoon, I guess we will simply have to agree to disagree on the rationality of going to war based on possible future aggression. I for one wouldn't even consider it. Let me ask you this: Do you really think that WWII, with its 50 million dead, was unavoidable? That that was the best that could be done in the circumstances? Why didn't Hitler invade Spain? Why didn't Hitler invade Switzerland? It seems to me that it would have been wiser for England and France, instead of declaring war, to simply beef-up their own defenses and practice armed-to-the-teeth neutrality (like Switzerland).

Regarding the Ukrainians: Given the choice of being appallingly mistreated by Germans or being appallingly mistreated by Stalinists, I would take advantage of the confusion and flee. Yes, being a refugee would be unpleasant. But it couldn't possibly be as unpleasant as being in the middle of the largest and bloodiest military confrontation in the earth's history (the Eastern Front in WWII).

 

I guess we will simply have to agree to disagree on the rationality of going to war based on possible future aggression.

Okay! - but I would point out that there come a stage that possible future aggression is as close to being an almost certainty of future aggression. This I believe was the case in '39. Incidentaly, it is a shame that WWII has (doesn't it always?) come to dominate these discussions, because I think there are many interesting historical examples where your stance is valid - e.g the revolutionary war, and many of ancient Rome's conquests. However, this is because there were substantially different balances of risk involved.

Do you really think that WWII, with its 50 million dead, was unavoidable?

Good lord, no. As was remarked upon at the time, and frequently since, a fairer treatment of Germany after WWI, or an immediate reaction to Germany's rearmament may have prevented it. By 1937/8, however, there was little alternative left.

Even after the war started, there was much have could be done differently - an aggressive French attack into the Rhineland, which had very little defence, may very well have ended the war quickly (but perhaps not, we'll never know). Even leaving the defence of France with capable Generals who listened to their intelligence may have been enough to end the war fairly quickly.

Why didn't Hitler invade Spain? Why didn't Hitler invade Switzerland? It seems to me that it would have been wiser for England and France, instead of declaring war, to simply beef-up their own defenses and practice armed-to-the-teeth neutrality (like Switzerland).


Spain was fascist, and Hitler had helped Franco to power. And neither countries were 'Great Powers' - i.e. a threat to German domination. Besides, France was always going to be a target of Hitler's aggression - he wished to humilate her to gain his revenge. And essentially, sitting tight behind heavy defences is what the allies did - and it was one of the factors that led to France's defeat.

Perhaps, practically, the allies should have sat tight and not declared war, and rearmed themselves for the eventual conflict. But, to there assessment of the time, this would have mearly given Germany a chance to get even stronger. And with the alliance between Russia and Germany, any chance of getting the two dictators to fight would have seemed lost. Besides, imagine the horror of western commanders in imagining what a forcibly united Russsia and Germany would command resource wise if there had been a war in which the UK and France did not intervene. Even this option had huge risks for the democracies.

 

I?ve been remiss about responding, and will now try to catch up a bit. I?m still waiting to hear from Mr44 on point from my last post, by the way.


Anadami:

But if you let it live you have to live with it. Because they will kill you with out a thought. They will hurt those you love. They will take away ever thing you have.

And are you happy with this state of affairs? Do you like to live in fear?

Who says that it cannot be changed? If you allow yourself this initially antagonistic attitude, of course you will fear people.

With all humanity?s wonderous achievements, to make war an anachronism, to grow our world into one where war has no place in our lives HAS to be possible. Let?s look for answers in your above quote:


Let?s see, this is very telling: you start by saying "But if you let it live..."

Let WHAT live? What is "it"? Are you using the word "it" to represent other people? If you are, I can tell you right there that this predudice, this attitude is the very first thing that has to go if you want a world without war, and without any perceived need for war. People must remain people in your eyes. And war is nothing if it is not against people.

If ?it? means human cruelty, then the fist place to work on ridding the world of cruelty is within one?s self, by becoming more compassionate. Read on...


You continue: "...because they will kill you without a thought."

At least you are using a personal pronoun now (?they?). Let?s go one step further. I think you should define your ?enemies? (you know, this mysterious ?they? to whom you refer). Get to know the people you fear, and they will frighten you less especially if you view them as people, who might be more fearful than you.

Understand that war was not invented by humans, so it is not an innate human characteristic; it is acquired.


And more: ? They will take away ever thing you have.?

I can think of several entites who would do this, and none of them need to be made war upon.



Foof:

To start with, fear and mistrust are often seeded by non-miltary actions.

Of course they are. I never said it was the threat of war alone which people fear. I am questioning the need to respond to ones fear by use of military readiness.

I think it was Einstein that said something like ?You cannot simultaneously avert and prepare for war?. Wise words, from a very wise fellow.

Secondly, having no military at all can increase instability depending on the circumstances.

I have not yet decided about the need for a military. A civic defense, one which includes emergency services, is where I think we could start. Arming in response to the actions of a neighbor (or even one who is not so close by) simply shows weakness, of mind and spirit, even if the ability to force enemies to submit is perfected.

Besides, your above point about having no military at all decreasing stability is absurd and unfounded in any perceivable reality, since no one on Earth can say that they have tried.



I said: How does one avert evil by committing evil? I think it is impossible for this condition to be fulfilled, because war consists of injustice.

Foof:

Only in some vague, abstract, moral sense. I can think of any number of situations in which a war results in a better - or a 'less bad' situation if you will - arrising than if the war had not been fought.

I can imagine a root canal that involves no dentist, too, but that does not make it any more realistic.

To contend that you have the ability to predict all the consequences of something as massively destructive (in all terms, human life among them) as a war, and then to further contend that you have the objectivity to place upon this exchange a value judgment stating that a war lead to a preferable circumstance is even more absurd than saying you know something for an absolute fact even though

 

I'm sorry, did I miss a post of yours, Garth?

I wouldn't feel right about myself if I missed an opportunity to respond..

 

Garth, I was worried you weren;t going to respond

I am questioning the need to respond to ones fear by use of military readiness.


Of course, military options should be used with extreme caution, and there are of course legions of conflict where fear has provoked conflict because nations have reacted reflexively and forcefully.

You cannot simultaneously avert and prepare for war

Just 'cos Einstein said it doesn't mean its true.

Arming in response to the actions of a neighbor (or even one who is not so close by) simply shows weakness, of mind and spirit, even if the ability to force enemies to submit is perfected.


Err... what if the neighbour is arming itself to the teeth, muttering about needing 'living space' or 'reclaiming natural borders', and starts denouncing you as weak and cowardly? What if this neighbour has already invaded other nations?

Besides, your above point about having no military at all decreasing stability is absurd and unfounded in any perceivable reality, since no one on Earth can say that they have tried.

You need to read your history a bit more - check WW2 and Norway.

I can imagine a root canal that involves no dentist, too, but that does not make it any more realistic.




I find the fact that you accuse me of being unrealistic ironic at best, Garth!

To contend that you have the ability to predict all the consequences of something as massively destructive (in all terms, human life among them) as a war

no-one can predict all consequencies - either for peace or war. Judgements simply have to be made on the basis of the facts available. Such as Will we be better or worse off under a brutal, viscious, psychopathic dictator? Can we win? Can we avert a war? Can we reason with them? and so on and so forth. Not all facts will be known, but that is the nature of life.

the objectivity to place upon this exchange a value judgment stating that a war lead to a preferable circumstance

And you claim to have the objectivity to know that by not fighting a preferable situation would arise! Yet, you provide no concrete example or evidence to support this. Ihave used both the 2nd world war and the revolutionary war to try and frame my viewpoint. It would be helpful if you could do a similar thing, Garth

know something for an absolute fact even though it has never been tested

No, I didn't. I give my opinion, and I have tried in this thread to explain that opinion.

The outcome might be preferable to you, mind you?but are you asking all involved? Are you asking your ?enemies??

Again, give examples. If a country is faced with being invaded, torched, its citizens enslaved - as has happened many many times, then in a situation in which they are able to keep their freedom, their country is less devastated, but only by war, then war is not an unreasonable act on their behalf, though I grant you, it may not be 'optimal' for their enemies, mind!

Who is being vague and abstract? To vagueness and abstraction you must revert (?I can think of??, you said). What is more vague and abstract than for me to join you in your pipedreams of justifiable war? I can?t think of much.


So how come you have not provided any actual, real-life examples of what we should do?

So instead of mobilizing populations (fighting fire with fire, no?) why don?t we look at what causes these ?ruthless and violent? individuals to become ruthless and violent, and address them,

And how, pray, does one do that with a dictator? Oh, I agree that there are many things that can be done to try and help individuals that have become violent, criminal, or disturbed. Its kind of difficult to do that when they run a country, y'know!

In a community, if someone is acting cruelly to others, an individual, mind you, the solution of the problem can begin with the community, as a whole, using non-violence as the organizing principle, seeking out the nature of the bully?s problems: why is

 

Something I had forgotten:

Churchill and FDR were most unresponsive to the anti-Hitler forces in Germany. (Remember, only 42% of the German voters voted for Hitler.) Further, though Hitler might have been insane, his military command was not. Knowing it was a fool's errand, not many of them wanted to invade Russia, IIRC. So lots and lots of Germans didn't like Hitler, including many of his military high command.

Instead of plunging headlong into a war that cost them millions of lives, why didn't England and France (if they truly thought Hitler was a threat) conspire with Hitler's military high command to arrange a coupe against Hitler, kill him, and impose martial law?

Also, if they were wise, the reigning governments in England and France would quietly apologize to the German military leaders for their shabby treatment of Germany since WWI. They would acknowledge the legitimacy of Germany's conquests to date (essentially German-speaking lands), and agree to non-aggression treaties amongst England, France, and Germany.

It seems all this could have been done for far, far less than 1% of the cost of WWII. Of course, this plan assumes two things:

1. that the governements of England and France would swallow their pride in order to avoid war

2. that the governments of England and France actually wanted to avoid war

Bad bets, both.

 

Instead of plunging headlong into a war that cost them millions of lives, why didn't England and France (if they truly thought Hitler was a threat) conspire with Hitler's military high command to arrange a coupe against Hitler, kill him, and impose martial law?


Because there was no realistic chance of the plan succeeding. The German military was nowhere near as anti-Hitler as you seem to think. If it was that easy to just kill Hitler, it would have already happened. There was nothing France or the UK could realistically do to bring this about.

that the governments of England and France actually wanted to avoid war


The governments of the UK and France where desperate to avoid war - which is why appeasement was followed for so long.

 

Some Germans did indeed want the cooperation of Churchill in getting rid of Hitler, but were scorned. Here is a quote from Erik von Kuehnnelt-Leddihn's essay, Monarchy and War:

"...the rebuff suffered by the secret German Right before the outbreak of World War II (the Halder-Beck conspiracy) and then during the war of their efforts through Dr. Bell, the bishop of Chichester, who begged in vain to get the cooperation of Winston Churchill. I met the bishop of Chichester after the war in New York. He assured me that Churchill had not read the material he gave him. (With one bottle of whiskey every day, he obviously did not have the time.) Anthony Eden was afraid to irritate the Soviets if contacts were taken up with German generals. Eden was also the man who surrendered the anti-communist Russians, Croats and Slovenes to the Soviets and to Tito. They were butchered en masse."


As to England and France not wanting war with Germany:

1. Then why declare war on Germany? Especially the English, whom Hitler considered to be "Sea Germans".

2. Why did the Allies after World War I take chunks out of Germany and pass them out to weak countries bordering Germany, resulting in German minorities (and minorities are supposedly always "oppressed") in these countries? Isn't that practically begging a resurgent Germany to militarily annex these lands? It seems to me that the English and French governments did everything they could in aftermath of WWI to guarantee WWII.

These are not the actions of governments that want to avoid war. Instead, they are the actions of cynical governments addicted to military conflict. In the context of the period before England and France declared war on Hitler, it seems disingenuous to suggest that Hitler was being particularly aggressive. After all, he was merely doing what was all but inevitable (see point 2. above). Further, if Hitler was dangerous to England and France because he invaded Poland, then why wasn't Stalin dangerous to England and France because Stalin invaded Poland? Why declare war on Germany? Why not declare war on Russia instead? It all seems so ridiculously arbitrary.

 

Some Germans did indeed want the cooperation of Churchill in getting rid of Hitler, but were scorned.

Indeed they did - but their chances of success were small, and there really wasn't the support for this that would have made it at all practical. Besides, the thought of Germany being controlled by competant generals rather than an ultimately incompetant one is not something they could have regarded with joy.

Then why declare war on Germany? Especially the English

As I said, it was a case of weighing current danger vs future potential threat. War was probably inevitable, why wait for Germany to grow even stronger?

whom Hitler considered to be "Sea Germans"

Again, Hitler's private comments reveal that he had a great contempt fot the British democracy. At best, only a fascist Britain was something Hitler would have been prepared to live with. Not, really, an optimal outcome!

Why did the Allies after World War I take chunks out of Germany and pass them out to weak countries bordering Germany, resulting in German minorities (and minorities are supposedly always "oppressed") in these countries?

Balance of power considerations. Germany was far too powerful, and therefore a threat to the order of Europe. Besides, Germany was a relatively new nation, and 'Germany' as a unified nation was less than a lifetime old.

Isn't that practically begging a resurgent Germany to militarily annex these lands?

Hindsight is a wonderful thing. At the time, the calculation probably ran along the lines that the war happened because Germany was too powerful, and felt it could win. Therefore, to avoid a war - to restore a balnce of power that had kept peace in Europe for a century - Germany was made 'less powerful'. Again, there are flaws in this abundantly evident with hindsight, but which at the time were not at all evident - e.g. a realisation that a stable balance of power had rested on the UK's dominance - a dominance it was now rapidly losing.

Instead, they are the actions of cynical governments addicted to military conflict

They are the actions of cynical governments trying to avoid war. The mood after the first world war was vastly anti-war. Ironically, it was this that doomed the post-war settlement to failure, as there was no longer the will to enforce it. Churchill was percieved for almost all of the the thirties as a war-monger, and sidelined.

Hitler, it seems disingenuous to suggest that Hitler was being particularly aggressive

There might be an argument for this in terms of Hitler being aggressive at the wrong time - i.e. when overt militarism had fallen out of favour in the western democracies. However, Hitler was being particularly aggressive for the time. This was not just a war of re-unification, but the wholesale conquest of many indigenous peoples, many (most?) of whom dod not want to be German. Besides, as I said before, just because it might be 'fair' to let Germany carve an Empire for itself, does not mean this was in the UK or France's best interests.

then why wasn't Stalin dangerous to England and France because Stalin invaded Poland

He was. But is your argument that, from a practical point of view, it was better for France and the UK to be at war with two powers not one.

Why declare war on Germany? Why not declare war on Russia instead?

Churchill nearly did over Finland - but rightly this was seen as a foolish manouver that would have simply worsened the allied situation.

 

Actually, I think I'd rather have a competent general running Germany than an incompetent one. A competent general wouldn't over-reach himself. He'd be less likely to invade other countries, especially Russia. IIRC, at least at the beginning of WWII, Hitler's generals were old WWI hands who essentially wanted to get back what they lost in WWI. I don't think they particularly wanted to do much other than get a pan-German empire.

As for Hitler's private comments regarding England's democracy: He obviously would have a poor view of any government not similar to his own. It does not therefore follow, however, that he would wage war to change that government.

I understand why it would be suicide to declare war on both Germany and Russia. My question is this: Why did England and France declare war on Germany instead of on Russia? Why not ally themselves with Germany against Russia? In fact, from the English and French point of view, Germany would act as a convenient buffer against Russia. But by declaring war on Germany, there was nothing standing between them and Germany's armies. Further, at that time Hitler had killed his thousands and Stalin his millions.

On another note, some people (though not all) say that England and France had to declare war on Germany to "save the Jews" (though that wasn't anybody's war aim). How many Jews lived in England? Didn't England lose at least a million lives in WWII? Didn't England lose more lives than there were Jews in England? That doesn't make sense. "Let's sacrifice a million lives to save half a million!"

Also, I have realized why Hitler might decide to invade Russia after England and France declared war on Germany. Hitler probably thought to himself, "Hmmm, I remember what England did to Germany in the Great War. They blockaded us with their navy and starved us out. I need to avoid that. I need a bread basket. Let's see here... The Ukraine! I need that! With the Ukraine I can avoid famine if the English blockade Germany again!"

All these considerations and more would have gone through my mind if I were an Englishman or a Frenchman in the late 1930s and early 1940s. Would I really want to throw myself into the maelstrom? After all, the horrific WWI ("the war to end all wars") was fought a mere 20 years earlier, and for what? To set the pieces up for another pan-European war? No thanks. I'd leave that insanity. While emigrating can be difficult, it would be a piece of cake compared to the five years of unimaginably bloody conflict that engulfed England and France. In short, the cost-benefit analysis I'd make for myself would definitely indicate that I should opt-out of the war.

 

Actually, I think I'd rather have a competent general running Germany than an incompetent one. A competent general wouldn't over-reach himself. He'd be less likely to invade other countries, especially Russia.

I think that is an awful stretch to conclude that this would have been the inevitable result of the military being in charge. Hitler had had plenty of time to corrupt the military to the Nazi way of thinking. I really don't think that the senior high command and Hitler differed all that much in general - though I am not certain of this. Nor, I suspect, could the allies have been certain of this. It would have been an awfully huge gamble to take with their counties future. Besides, I have to reiterate that I think the chance of a coup succeeding were vanishingly small, certainly at the start of WWII.

Hitler's generals were old WWI hands who essentially wanted to get back what they lost in WWI

Again, how was this remotely in the UK and France's best interests?

It does not therefore follow, however, that he would wage war to change that government.


No, but considering he used force to crush any other dissenting opinion that he ran accross, I think it is being optimistic at the best to assume that the UK would somehow have been treated differently.

Why did England and France declare war on Germany instead of on Russia?

A suppose bluntly because Germany was the first of the two too run around carving up countries. Russia only started after Germany, if memory serves. Also, Germany was the closest of the two, and therefore the more immediate threat. Thirdly, the idea of essentially helping Germany aquire large chunks of Russian land can hardly have seemed an improvement to the UK and France - again, what benefit to them would there have been in having a massively strengthened German military?

Germany would act as a convenient buffer against Russia

And that was many people's arguments at the time. But... it was Germany running round the place carving upc countries at the time. Again, it was the more immediate threat than Russia. And with Hitler's treaty with Stalin, any chance of a united front against Russia was destroyed.

Further, at that time Hitler had killed his thousands and Stalin his millions.

In some ways irrelavent, though I know what you are trying to say...

On another note, some people (though not all) say that England and France had to declare war on Germany to "save the Jews" (though that wasn't anybody's war aim). How many Jews lived in England? Didn't England lose at least a million lives in WWII? Didn't England lose more lives than there were Jews in England? That doesn't make sense. "Let's sacrifice a million lives to save half a million!"

This isn't true, the UK and France declared war to protect themselves. The full horror of the final solution was not known until after the war. Besides, it wasn't just jews that were killed by Hitler - he was more than happy to slaughter anyone who was percieved as a threat, not just particular racial groups. Ithink UK dead in WW2 was closer to 350000 - though I could be wrong there.

Hitler probably thought to himself, "Hmmm, I remember what England did to Germany in the Great War. They blockaded us with their navy and starved us out. I need to avoid that. I need a bread basket. Let's see here... The Ukraine! I need that! With the Ukraine I can avoid famine if the English blockade Germany again!"


There is certainly some truth to this, Germany was principally driven to start the war initially because it had run out of many raw materials needed to sustain it's military. However, there is a certain circular logic to this. And again, Germany fully intended to colonise western Russia whatever happened in the west. Stalin and Hitler hated each other, and war would have come between them no matter what, though this wasn't necessarily apparent at the start of WW2 I grant you.

All these considerations and more would have gone through my mind if I were an Englishman

 

That that was the best that could be done in the circumstances? Why didn't Hitler invade Spain? Why didn't Hitler invade Switzerland?

Hitler did want to invade Switzerland, his ultimate goal was to unite the German speaking people into one nation, and Switzerland and Lietchenstein have large German speaking populations. Had Britain ended the war with him after the fall of France he would have sent his troops into Switzerland. He wanted to anyway but was heavily advised against it during WWII by his Generals who said the terrain would have ate up too many resources (in truth its because they had plundered Europe and stashed it Swiss banks), but it would have happened. Switzerland would have been divided between Vichy France, Germany, and Italy.

Spain, Im willing to bet Hitler would have invaded Spain after WWII. He needed war to bolster his economy, and he really did not like Franco, especially after Franco refused to ally with him during the war.

Given the choice of being appallingly mistreated by Germans or being appallingly mistreated by Stalinists, I would take advantage of the confusion and flee.

Flee to where? As you said theyre in middle of the bloodiest conflict in history, but where could they flee. If they go west theyll be in Nazi occupide Europe if they go east they go into the USSR. If they go south they'll go into the sea, where Nazi Uboats would have no mercy on ships. You really havent thought this thing through have you?

Further, though Hitler might have been insane, his military command was not. Knowing it was a fool's errand, not many of them wanted to invade Russia, IIRC. So lots and lots of Germans didn't like Hitler, including many of his military high command.

Hence why they tried to kill him but failed, miserably. In turn Hitler purged them. Thats how come Rommel was given the choice to commit suicide or be murdered with his family.

Instead of plunging headlong into a war that cost them millions of lives, why didn't England and France (if they truly thought Hitler was a threat) conspire with Hitler's military high command to arrange a coupe against Hitler, kill him, and impose martial law?

Because Hitler's high command wasnt against Hitler until the war started. Why murder someone who made the military strong again and was causing the country to grow by leaps and bounds?

Also, if they were wise, the reigning governments in England and France would quietly apologize to the German military leaders for their shabby treatment of Germany since WWI.

German leaders didnt want a quiet apology. They wanted revenge, they wanted to restore what was lost. An apology might have done ok with the German people, but the French people wouldnt have like it. Remember World War I was the French war of revenge.

They would acknowledge the legitimacy of Germany's conquests to date (essentially German-speaking lands), and agree to non-aggression treaties amongst England, France, and Germany.

They did, hence the British Prime Minister holding up the treaty signed by him and Hitler and declared peace in our time. That didnt work too well did it?

Why did the Allies after World War I take chunks out of Germany and pass them out to weak countries bordering Germany, resulting in German minorities (and minorities are supposedly always "oppressed") in these countries? Isn't that practically begging a resurgent Germany to militarily annex these lands? It seems to me that the English and French governments did everything they could in aftermath of WWI to guarantee WWII.

This is the root of the problem, had France only taken back what Germany took from them in the Franco-Prussian War and granted Poland independence as a small land-locked nation, then WWII would have been avoidable. Woodrow Wilson knew what was going on was wrong and at first opposed it, but suddenly backed down like a computer nerd to a playground bully. You can say the victors of world war I won the war but lost the peace.

Had Wilson stuck to his guns Hitle

 

Jedi Xen, noting that I would flee if I were a Russian when Hitler invaded, asked me:

"Flee to where? As you said theyre in middle of the bloodiest conflict in history, but where could they flee. If they go west theyll be in Nazi occupide Europe if they go east they go into the USSR. If they go south they'll go into the sea, where Nazi Uboats would have no mercy on ships. You really havent thought this thing through have you?"

Assuming I lived in the bloodiest part of Russia during WWII (i. e., the western part), why couldn't I have just fled south between the Black and Caspian Seas? There wasn't any fighting there until well into 1942. That would give me a solid year to escape into Iran or into Turkey. If I could manage but 4 miles a day over the course of a year (the distance from Moscow to the Iranian border), I'd be home free. Difficulties involved, you say? Yes, indeed. But it would be a cakewalk compared to joining in the unimaginable and interminable hell that was the Eastern Front. I'd rather take a relatively moderate risk trying to save my life than take an extreme risk trying to rescue Stalin from Hitler.


And foofaspoon was right: England lost 357,000 lives in WWII.

 

Assuming I lived in the bloodiest part of Russia during WWII (i. e., the western part), why couldn't I have just fled south between the Black and Caspian Seas?

This might be achievable for a few individuals, but hardly tens of millions of people...

England lost 357,000 lives in WWII.

Ah, thought so

 

But then if everybody thought like you, then youd have the problem of Soviet troops that arent fighting making you go to Moscow or someother part of Russia to help with the war effort, or Iran and Turkey blocking their borders to keep the influx of refugees from coming in. Then where do you go?

 

1. If everybody thought as I do, there would never be any armies because everyone would do a cost/benefit analysis for himself and realize it's a bum deal to endure the hardships of war, with the most you can get in return is coming back in one piece. Therefore your scenario wouldn't happen, Jedi Xen, since all the Germans would have stayed home.

2. But since most people don't think as I do, but instead flock to banners and flags, your scenario wouldn't happen in this case either, Jedi Xen.

In any case, I am completely baffled that anyone wouldn't avoid the Eastern Front like the plague. Especially with memories of WWI fresh in mind! I mean, I'd rather be almost anywhere or doing almost anything than that. I'd rather be a penniless beggar in Mexico City than a soldier on the Eastern Front.

 

"War involves in its progress such a train of unforeseen and unsupposed circumstances that no human wisdom can calculate the end. It has but one thing certain, and that is to increase taxes."
--Thomas Paine

That is a big reason to be very skeptical of a government's war claims. Why should a reasonable man risk his life in a war so his taxes can go up?

 

That is a big reason to be very skeptical of a government's war claims. Why should a reasonable man risk his life in a war so his taxes can go up?

Freedom! Freedom for myself if I live through the war, freedom for my family. Freedom so my children can have the choice to be what they want to be. Freedom so they can voice their opinion without fear of the government. Freedom so they can read what they want to read, write what they want to write and say what they want to say. Living without fear of my daughter, wife, sister and other females I care about being carted off to be sex toys for some dictator against their will. Not having to worry about my sons being shot for harboring warm feelings towards an enemy nation.

You define peace as the absence of war, and can not see past the high taxes of wars being sometimes necessary to maintain the way of life we enjoy. Thats quite foolish. War is sometimes a very necessary evil, sad to say. I will fight for freedom, I will die for freedom, I will fight to preserve our way of life. Somethings are worth fight for, and dying for. I would much rather live in a democracy where taxes are raised for a war to defend our values than live in a despotism where taxes are raised so the dictator can build a mansion for his dog and shoot a few thousand people as a wedding gift for his wife.

 

Rising taxes entails a loss of freedom. The higher your taxes are, the more you're working for the government's benefit rather than your own.

Further, wars usually entail other losses of freedom, such as:

1. conscription
2. abridgement of free speech
3. government take-overs of private industries

Democracies, not only non-democractic states, do such things. Further, though taxes and laws decrease after the war is over, they never decrease to their pre-war levels. So with each war taxes and laws permanently increase over what they were the day before the war. Multiply that out over a couple centuries and you have huge tax rates and a government that micromanages your life, even in time of peace. Is that really freedom?

 

I find it funny when I read what you say and look at the title. There isnt a lick of ration into your thinking. You'd be content to let some invading country roll in and take over just so your taxes wont be raised to fight a war. Is that all you care about? Money? Good gracious man, do you honestly think things through before you type it down? From the looks of it I say most definatley not, I have yet to see you on any thread you have participated in here on the Senate Floor argue your side and have it though through to conclusion. As I read what you type, I get the idea you have a very selfish agenda, like you believe the world revolves around you. Please tell me you dont believe the sun doesnt rise until you wake up? Everything you type screams it.

1. conscription
2. abridgement of free speech
3. government take-overs of private industries

This is everyday non-sense in countries that dont have western values. I must also disagree with #2 as we have seen with the recent war on Iraq and in Vietnam (and to a lesser extint Korea) people in the west are often able to protest war without fear of the government dragging them off and making them disappear forever.

[image=http://members.cox.net/calvinlew/images/tank-35.gif]

[image=http://www.hippy.com/trip/dcprotest.jpg]

Two photographs that speak wonders. The first one is the 1989 Tinanment Square Incident. That brave soul has vanished never heard from again.

The second one is a group of American Protesters during the Vietnam War. Some of the have probably died since the photo was taken. But they lived in freedom afterwards.

And dont get me started of number 3 on your list, that happens with businesses to other businesses more than the governments do.

So with each war taxes and laws permanently increase over what they were the day before the war. Multiply that out over a couple centuries and you have huge tax rates and a government that micromanages your life, even in time of peace. Is that really freedom?

Are you by any chance an Anarchist? Your rhetoric screams, just as the lack of reason. I can respect a person who does not wish war because of idealogical reasons, and war should always, always be the last resort. However I can not for the life of me bring myself into respecting this War is bad because it raises taxes attitude you have. You remind me of one of those Better Red than Dead people I heard so much about from Vietnam War Veterans. It doesnt surpise me people have that attitude, Red would compliment the yellow streak running up their spine.

KK EDIT: You need to use shorter URLs for the images. Anything over 100 characters will not work (including the markup codes).

 

President Franklin Roosevelt described you to a perfect tee in his four freedom speech. I shall bold his reference to your ilk.

No realistic American can expect from a dictator's peace
international generosity, or return of true independence, or
world disarmament, or freedom of expression, or freedom of
religion-- or even good business. Such a peace would bring
no security for us or for our neighbors. Those who would
give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

As a nation we may take pride in the fact that we are
soft-hearted; but we cannot afford to be soft-headed. We
must always be wary of those who with sounding brass and a
tinkling cymbal preach the ism of appeasement. We must
especially beware of that small group of selfish men who
would clip the wings of the American eagle in order to
feather their own nests.

I recommend everyone read FDR's Four Freedom Speech before continuing reading the trifle posted in this thread.

 

I am indeed an anarcho-capitalist. In other words, I believe that each person has unalienable rights to life, liberty, and property. I live right next door to the Founding Fathers, who believed in having an incredibly small government.

The American patriots who fought against England in 1775-1783 fought to avoid paying taxes that amounted to less than 3% of their annual income. Compare that to today in which the average American pays over 50% of his annual income in taxes.

So of course I don't want my taxes raised to fight a war. I'm still paying for previous wars (i. e., the American military base on Okinawa, even though WWII has been over for almost 60 years). I can't afford to pay for any more. It is not in my best interest to pay 60% of my income in taxes, or 70%, or 80%, etc. I work 40 hours a week to support myself and my wife. I can't afford to support the millionaires in the government. I can't afford to pay for their wars.

And that is a practical reason to be a pacifist. When I can't afford a book I want, I don't buy it. When I can't afford a war, I don't fight it.

 

Xen, please focus on the individual arguments, as opposed to the people making them. It would be appreciated .