Freethought & Rationalism Archive

paul30 · 08-04-2003, 09:31 AM

Many who dislike war say they are not absolute pacifists, and would, for example, have fought against Franco in Spain or in the US Civil War against slavery, or against Hitler in WWII.

I am of the opinion that means almost always become ends, and that war always corrupts the idealist goals that are urged for it.

For example, the US Civil War is often said to have been justified because it abolished slavery. But I find this reasoning criminally faulty. Great Britain abolished slavery peacefully by simply having the government buy the slaves--thus eliminating slaveholders' resistance. This had longlasting and benign results. In the US, on the other hand, the Civil War has left wounds and resentments that linger to this day.

Similarly with Hitler. Hitler was a product of the punitive treatment of Germany after WWI.

Any thoughts on all this?

Vandrare · 08-04-2003, 11:23 AM

what about the countries in europe that had to go to war to protect themselves from the nazi's? how else could they have stopped hitler? war may not be a good idea, but sometimes there isn't really any other option - its the lesser of two evils.

MortalWombat · 08-04-2003, 01:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by paul30
Any thoughts on all this?

Yes. Hindsight is 20/20.

paul30 · 08-04-2003, 03:58 PM

No, no.

THOUGHTS. Not slogans.

everlastingtongue · 08-04-2003, 08:03 PM

paul30,

Your original post, mentioning both absolute pacifists and Hitler, made me think of this:

Ghandi�s open letter to Hitler, 1941:

From http://www.startribune.com/stories/1389/36387.html

Quote:

Dear Friend,

That I address you as a friend is no formality. I own no foes. My business in life for the past 33 years has been to enlist the friendship of the whole of humanity by befriending mankind, irrespective of race, color or creed.

I hope you will have the time and desire to know how a good portion of humanity who have been living under the influence of that doctrine of universal friendship, view your actions . . . your humiliation of Czechoslovakia, the rape of Poland and the swallowing of Denmark. I am aware that your view of life regards such spoliations as virtuous acts. But we have been taught from childhood to regard them as acts degrading to humanity. Hence we cannot possibly wish success to your arms.

But ours is a unique position. We resist the British imperialism no less than Nazism. If there is a difference, it is in degree. One-fifth of the human race has been brought under the British heel by means that will not bear scrutiny. Our resistance to it does not mean harm to the British people. We seek to convert them, not to defeat them on the battlefield.

Ours is an unarmed revolt against British rule. But whether we convert them or not, we are determined to make their rule impossible by nonviolent noncooperation. It is a method in its nature undefeatable. It is based upon the knowledge that no spoliator can compass his end without a certain degree of cooperation, willing or compulsory, from the victim. Our rulers may have our land and bodies but not our souls. They can have the former only by complete destruction of every Indian -- man, woman or child.

That all may not rise to that degree of heroism and that a fair amount of frightfulness can bend the back of revolt is true; but the argument would be beside the point. For, if a fair number of men and women can be found in India who would be prepared, without any ill-will against the spoliators, to lay down their lives rather than bend the knee to them, they will have shown the way to freedom from the tyranny of violence. I ask you to believe me when I say that you will find an unexpected number of such men and women in India. They have been having that training for the past 20 years.

In nonviolent technique, as I have said, there is no such thing as defeat. It is all "do or die," without killing or hurting. It can be used practically without money and obviously without the aid of the science of destruction which you have brought to such perfection. It is a marvel to me that you do not see that is nobody's monopoly. If not the British, then some other power will certainly improve upon your method and beat you with your own weapon. You are leaving no legacy to your people of which they would feel proud, They cannot take pride in a recital of cruel deeds, however skilfully planned. I therefore appeal to you in the name of humanity to stop the war . . . .

SLD · 08-04-2003, 09:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by paul30
Many who dislike war say they are not absolute pacifists, and would, for example, have fought against Franco in Spain or in the US Civil War against slavery, or against Hitler in WWII.

I am of the opinion that means almost always become ends, and that war always corrupts the idealist goals that are urged for it.

For example, the US Civil War is often said to have been justified because it abolished slavery. But I find this reasoning criminally faulty. Great Britain abolished slavery peacefully by simply having the government buy the slaves--thus eliminating slaveholders' resistance. This had longlasting and benign results. In the US, on the other hand, the Civil War has left wounds and resentments that linger to this day.

Similarly with Hitler. Hitler was a product of the punitive treatment of Germany after WWI.

Any thoughts on all this?

Well, respectfully, I think there are some serious problems with your historical analysis to start with. For one, it is not clear that the U.S. government could have paid enough to Plantation owners to get rid of slavery. Slavery flourished in the South and died off in the north precisely because it was so profitable in the South - to a far larger degree than it was in England. Second, I think it is very simplistic to assume that the North was just fighting to free the slaves. Whole northern regiments threw down their rifles and went home when Lincoln announced the Emancipation Proclamation. (Not to say that the South was lily white over this issue mind you).

Also, Hitler was not merely a product of the punitive treatment of Germany of WWI - if anything he was a product of late 19th Century Vienna and of decades of virulently German anti-semitism. Certainly the Treaty of Versailles was a despicable treaty that the U.S. Senate rightly rejected, but it does not explain the rise of Hitler by itself. And, as other posters have argued, even if you accept your premise, 20-20 hindsight is still a problem. Remember, Hitler declared war on us, Japan attacked our country for no other reason than we wouldn't supply her war machine with raw materials so that she could expand into Asia.

I would argue that there are many, many reasons to go to war -- it is the ultimate solution to many problems, and thus should only be used as a last resort and only when our very existence is threatened. But in the end, yes, I do believe that freedom, and more particularly, the U.S. Constitution, is worth fighting for and indeed, I do.

SLD

everlastingtongue · 08-04-2003, 09:57 PM

Originally posted by SLD

Quote:

Remember, Hitler declared war on us...

Please don�t mistake me for a Nazi apologist, which I am certainly not, but we, the U.S., declared war on Germany after Pearl Harbor. Just a history nitpick.

SLD · 08-05-2003, 06:27 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by everlastingtongue
Originally posted by SLD
Please don�t mistake me for a Nazi apologist, which I am certainly not, but we, the U.S., declared war on Germany after Pearl Harbor. Just a history nitpick.

Not correct. Hitler did it first. In fact, Roosevelt intended to hold a national referendum on whether we should go to war with Germany, but Hitler simply declared war on America in a speech to the Reichstag on December 11th. When Roosevelt got the message, he in turn declared war on Germany and Congress readily approved later that day. So in fact, Hitler struck first.

http://www.fdrlibrary.marist.edu/ww2faq.html

SLD

MortalWombat · 08-05-2003, 08:13 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by SLD
Hitler struck first.

Which actually surprised his own generals:Hitler's Decision to Declare War on the United States Revisited

Quote:

On December 11, 1941, four days after the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, General Alfred Jodl, chief of operations staff in The Military High Command, hurried through a call to the chief of the Plans Section of the Oberkommando der Wehrmacht (OKW). He informed General Walter Warlimont that the F�rher had just declared war on the United States and asked his staff to study where the bulk of American forces would initially be deployed.1 Warlimont agreed that such an examination was necessary "for we have never even considered a war against the United States and so have no data on which to base this decision."

everlastingtongue · 08-05-2003, 05:35 PM

Wow. I stand corrected. And all these years I thought that I had my WW II history down pat...

08-04-2003, 09:31 AM	#1
paul30 Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Atlanta, GA USA Posts: 870	any absolute pacifists? Many who dislike war say they are not absolute pacifists, and would, for example, have fought against Franco in Spain or in the US Civil War against slavery, or against Hitler in WWII. I am of the opinion that means almost always become ends, and that war always corrupts the idealist goals that are urged for it. For example, the US Civil War is often said to have been justified because it abolished slavery. But I find this reasoning criminally faulty. Great Britain abolished slavery peacefully by simply having the government buy the slaves--thus eliminating slaveholders' resistance. This had longlasting and benign results. In the US, on the other hand, the Civil War has left wounds and resentments that linger to this day. Similarly with Hitler. Hitler was a product of the punitive treatment of Germany after WWI. Any thoughts on all this?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-04-2003, 11:23 AM	#2
Vandrare Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Brisneyland Posts: 854	what about the countries in europe that had to go to war to protect themselves from the nazi's? how else could they have stopped hitler? war may not be a good idea, but sometimes there isn't really any other option - its the lesser of two evils.

08-04-2003, 03:58 PM	#4
paul30 Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Atlanta, GA USA Posts: 870	No, no. THOUGHTS. Not slogans.

08-05-2003, 05:35 PM	#10
everlastingtongue Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Location Posts: 398	Wow. I stand corrected. And all these years I thought that I had my WW II history down pat...

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.