Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
would it have been possible to stop the Nazis without using the military? i would like to think it would be somehow as I am a pacifist, but even Einstein reluctantly became pro-war in that case, so i don't know. what do you think?
would it have been possible to stop the Nazis without using the military? i would like to think it would be somehow as I am a pacifist, but even Einstein reluctantly became pro-war in that case, so i don't know. what do you think?
Yes, it would have been possible since at some point the Nazis would have simply run out of people to subjugate and exterminate. Seriously, stopping the Nazi's with Ghandian/King forms of non-violence would have been a non-starter.
would it have been possible to stop the Nazis without using the military? i would like to think it would be somehow as I am a pacifist, but even Einstein reluctantly became pro-war in that case, so i don't know. what do you think?
No, not a chance. Hitler was not interested in moral scruples and would have looked upon any pacifist resistance as only aiding him, and would not have hesitated to crush any such resistance by force. The idea is impossibly naive, though well-intentioned. Also, you can substitute the name Stalin for Hitler above, or Idi Amin, or Pol Pot, or any number of others.
No, not a chance. Hitler was not interested in moral scruples and would have looked upon any pacifist resistance as only aiding him, and would not have hesitated to crush any such resistance by force. The idea is impossibly naive, though well-intentioned. Also, you can substitute the name Stalin for Hitler above, or Idi Amin, or Pol Pot, or any number of others.
From the long list of morbid dictators in the past century, only a tiny few ever tried to expand their tyranny to other countries. Since Hitler, right off-hand, I can't think of any others, but you could weakly argue for Mao and Qaddafi and GWBush. So you need to distinguish between "war" and "internal resistance".
I think that distinction is already in your mind, and Hitler is then an invalid example of your point. (In spite of the iron law that if any thread lasts long enough in any forum, Hitler will be mentioned.)
In all the countries where a dictator exerted excessive force, they died out by attrition, whether resisted or not, with a few lingering exceptions, namely Cuba, Burma, NKorea, Afghanistan. And all of them today are a great deal more benign than journalistic thrill-seekers adjudge them to be. At the moment, there simply aren't any Pol Pots or Amins in the world. They pop up in the world so rarely, one cannot apply a general principle as broad as "war" to them.
Ghandi and King were mentioned, and it is curious to note that one of them felt called upon to resist against the American people and government, and the other against our good ally and bosom buddy, the British. I leave it to you to deal with the dichotomy of whether the resistance of King/Ghandi and the tyranny of Hitler/Amin belong in the same discussion.
From the long list of morbid dictators in the past century, only a tiny few ever tried to expand their tyranny to other countries. Since Hitler, right off-hand, I can't think of any others, but you could weakly argue for Mao and Qaddafi and GWBush. So you need to distinguish between "war" and "internal resistance".
Saying (even weakly) GWB is a morbid dictator and lumping him in with Mao is going just a mite far even for a social elitist.
Mao outright had more than 12 MILLION of his countrymen killed and starved to death between 20 MILLION and 30 MILLION more because of his policies.
And I thought your attitude on net neutrality was off-the-wall... This takes the cake dude.....
Considering Hitlers Master Race theory, (Blond hair Blue eyes) his goal was to reintroduce the MR to the world then by shier superiority and coinciding extermination of lesser races.
With that mentality that he had a pacifist negotiation would be imposable. You can not be use pacifist means with a psychopath because their mind dose not understand it.
would it have been possible to stop the Nazis without using the military? i would like to think it would be somehow as I am a pacifist, but even Einstein reluctantly became pro-war in that case, so i don't know. what do you think?
Stopping Nazi's without the military? Their aim was to ultimately take over the world. If America then was as full of ******* as it is now we'd all be speaking German.
The military was the only way to stop them.
BTW - the jews were passive in the 30's and 40's. Where did it get them?
You think a similar situation today would be solved by being passive, sitting around in circles chanting kumbaya? -or- having political meetings? Appeasement like Neville Chamberlain did? His result was?
would it have been possible to stop the Nazis without using the military?
Totally impossible. Since this is Christmas Day, it may be a noble thought, but history has taught us otherwise. How far did Chamberlain get in stopping the Third Reich with this policy? The meek have never inherited the earth, and never will, only the strongest men with the best weapons have ever done so since the dawn of civilization. Tyrants have no moral principles, and view pacivism with contempt and as a sign of weakness and as an invitation to attack. Peace through strength with a powerful armed force and a willingness to use it in response to aggression.
Saying (even weakly) GWB is a morbid dictator and lumping him in with Mao is going just a mite far even for a social elitist.
Mao outright had more than 12 MILLION of his countrymen killed and starved to death between 20 MILLION and 30 MILLION more because of his policies.
And I thought your attitude on net neutrality was off-the-wall... This takes the cake dude.....
Go back and read my post, and this time try for comprehension, instead just looking for knee-jerk trigger words to lump together. You will see that the only respect in which I associated GWB with Mao was in their desire to exert control over lands beyond their own borders.
I could have said (but didn 't) that GWB was the absolute dictator of Iraq for quite a few years, and the number of Iraqi civilians who died as a direct result is certainly in the hundreds of thousands, and some sources estimate over a million. In a shorter space of time, the Bush dictatorship of Iraq killed a higher percentage of Iraqi civilians than the Mao regime did in China.
Passive resistance is predicated upon the idea of shaming the opposition into better behavior, and such a dynamic requires that the opposition is capable of embarassment. As numerous others in this thread have already pointed out, the Nazi doctrines made no room for such concerns and would not only have not been shamed by their ongoing exploitation/exterminations of unwanted characters, they would have welcomed the cooperation which would have come from those not resisting..it would have only made things easier for them.
Blackshoe appropriately mentioned Chamberlain and Munich, but it goes further than that. The Hitler program for the rapid turnaround of Germany's military capacities, very much relied on the other major powers remaining passive while he violated the terms of the Versailles Treaty. The Nazi rearmament program, the reoccupation of the Rhine, the Anschluss of Austria and the takeover of the remaining portions of the Czech territory...all depended upon no aggressive reaction from the West.
The Nazis loved passive resistance, it was a great saver of blood and treasure for them.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Unfortunately, the answer is no.
