Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Rational BAC · 08-05-2003, 05:57 PM

One of the dumbest things Hitler ever did was to declare war on the US. I seriously doubt that "America First" America would ever had declared war on Germany had not Hitler done it first.

The whole WW2 would have run a different course had he not done that. WW2 was iffy anyway. I think that is one of the main reasons the Germans lost. The other was the invasion of Soviet Russia. I am so glad that Hitler was at best slightly loony. Or we would all be speaking German today.

SLD · 08-05-2003, 06:42 PM

Quote:

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

Ohh, I wouldn't worry about it. I'm continually shocked by my own ignorance. I shudder to think some of the stupid things I've thought were correct in the past (like Christianity).

SLD

PaulPritchard · 08-06-2003, 05:30 AM

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?

My own view is that, while war should, in general, be avoided, there will always be cases when military action is the only option left. Therefore, countries should retain the option of going to war as a last resort.

To deal with your comment about Hitler, I would agree that the rise of the Nazi party in Germany was a result of the punitive reparations demanded by the allies and the consequent crippling of the German economy following WWI.

This is a valid argument for not having gotten involved in the first world war.

However, Britain and America did get involved in the first world war and Hitler did rise to power. Given the situation as it was in 1939, I think Churchill was fully justified in declaring war at that time.

SLD · 08-06-2003, 08:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by PaulPritchard
My own view is that, while war should, in general, be avoided, there will always be cases when military action is the only option left. Therefore, countries should retain the option of going to war as a last resort.

To deal with your comment about Hitler, I would agree that the rise of the Nazi party in Germany was a result of the punitive reparations demanded by the allies and the consequent crippling of the German economy following WWI.

This is a valid argument for not having gotten involved in the first world war.

However, Britain and America did get involved in the first world war and Hitler did rise to power. Given the situation as it was in 1939, I think Churchill was fully justified in declaring war at that time.

Good points, but here's a tougher question: Would it have been morally right to go to war in 1936 or even 1938?

There may not have been the serious Casus Belli at that time, but according to some members of Hitler's Army Staff, they would have revolted and killed Hitler had the other powers stood up to Hitler and forced him to back down. Millions of lives could have been saved and Hitler destroyed in 1938 had Chamberlain had the guts to be ready to force war. But at the same time, I can see millions condemning him for pushing the issue without sufficient cause. I don't think there are easy answers - we muddle through this problem as best we can.

SLD

Misso · 08-07-2003, 07:37 AM

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?

the usual arguement against pacifists is something like "what would you have done against the nazi's then?", but this is passing by on the fact that pacifism is more than just not wanting your own ountry to go to war, it's not wanting any country (or party) to go to war.
This said, there are still situations in which war is justified/inevitable, even if there was no other party to start war first, I just think that war is still, despite all our experience, waged too soon, and diplomacy and common sense are brushed aside as if war is the only option.

PaulPritchard · 08-07-2003, 01:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SLD
Good points, but here's a tougher question: Would it have been morally right to go to war in 1936 or even 1938?

There may not have been the serious Casus Belli at that time, but according to some members of Hitler's Army Staff, they would have revolted and killed Hitler had the other powers stood up to Hitler and forced him to back down. Millions of lives could have been saved and Hitler destroyed in 1938 had Chamberlain had the guts to be ready to force war. But at the same time, I can see millions condemning him for pushing the issue without sufficient cause. I don't think there are easy answers - we muddle through this problem as best we can.

SLD

Given the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, I would have to agree that forcing the issue sooner rather than later would undoubtedly have saved millions of lives.

Jutsuka · 08-07-2003, 02:54 PM

I'm not an absolute pacifist but I would like to post a verse from the Tao Te Ching that explains my view on the subject of "necessary" wars. I persoanlly believe that this is the mindset any leader and soldier should cultivate.

Tao Te Ching

Written by Lao-tzu
From a translation by S. Mitchell

Verse 31

Weapons are the tools of violence;
all decent men detest them.

Weapons are the tools of fear;
a decent man will avoid them
except in the direst necessity
and, if compelled, will use them
only with the utmost restraint.
Peace is his highest value.
If the peace has been shattered,
how can he be content?
His enemies are not demons,
but human beings like himself.
He doesn't wish them personal harm.
Nor does he rejoice in victory.
How could he rejoice in victory
and delight in the slaughter of men?

He enters a battle gravely,
with sorrow and with great compassion,
as if he were attending a funeral.

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

08-05-2003, 05:57 PM	#11
Rational BAC Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Tampa Bay area Posts: 3,471	One of the dumbest things Hitler ever did was to declare war on the US. I seriously doubt that "America First" America would ever had declared war on Germany had not Hitler done it first. The whole WW2 would have run a different course had he not done that. WW2 was iffy anyway. I think that is one of the main reasons the Germans lost. The other was the invasion of Soviet Russia. I am so glad that Hitler was at best slightly loony. Or we would all be speaking German today.

08-07-2003, 02:54 PM	#17
Jutsuka Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Sweden Posts: 144	I'm not an absolute pacifist but I would like to post a verse from the Tao Te Ching that explains my view on the subject of "necessary" wars. I persoanlly believe that this is the mindset any leader and soldier should cultivate. Tao Te Ching Written by Lao-tzu From a translation by S. Mitchell Verse 31 Weapons are the tools of violence; all decent men detest them. Weapons are the tools of fear; a decent man will avoid them except in the direst necessity and, if compelled, will use them only with the utmost restraint. Peace is his highest value. If the peace has been shattered, how can he be content? His enemies are not demons, but human beings like himself. He doesn't wish them personal harm. Nor does he rejoice in victory. How could he rejoice in victory and delight in the slaughter of men? He enters a battle gravely, with sorrow and with great compassion, as if he were attending a funeral.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.