Joe, your content is routinely rather provocative (in a good sense). Coupled with some of alea’s content regarding examples of non-violent action (Gandhi, King) I have come back to a notion I often hold.
PERHAPS
Perhaps the armed response to the NAZI terror was inappropriate or at least not the most appropriate response. I, in the end, am generally a pacifist. While certainly on a moment by moment basis I am as inclined as the next left-of-center person to resolve towards a military solution to matters, it seems I almost always end up questioning whether such decisions survive post-conflict arithmetic.
I use the Good War (WWII) as my touch point as the depth of the consensus of it being ‘sensible’ is near absolute, and so should one wander the path of pacifism, this is a matter they cannot avoid.
It appears fair to say that WWII precipitated some 50-80m human casualties. In this instance I am using death as the measure of casualty, as the metric definition does vary from battle to battle and circumstance to circumstance throughout human history. A sensible point of consideration for a pacifist perspective must always be … what would have happened in the absence of physical/armed resistance? Would the evil-doers simply have mowed through 50-80m humans (in the case of WWII)?
When faced with passive resistance the British Empire capitulated to the Gandhists. The sight of self immolation, striking against those who offer no military resistance, and so on simply collapsed. Is it that the British are simply more moral than the Germans? … or that the circumstances of their state was more vulnerable to an overt display of critical aspects of its own morality? Or is it the case that humans don’t just mow the other humans down in the absence of resistance; that resistance at some level legitimizes horror?
Certainly one needs to walk out of the local group (a galaxy metaphor) and wander back (in history). Alexander the Great was definitely a warrior, a warrior for warrior’s sake, a conqueror for conquering’s sake … I don’t put much distance between him and Cheney (and for the purposes of this discussion I will be referring to the leader of the United States from 2000-2008 as a gentleman named Cheney, I see no evidence to suggest that the figure head had much of a role in this other than saying yes when so advised, and I will add that I see nothing illegal or wrong, per se, in this.). Alexander’s triumphs were self-described only in terms of the notion that triumph alone sufficed for legitimacy. It seemed to serve adequately for his army as well, an army that traveled (crap I can’t remember, 20,000 miles?) routinely butchering any that opposed them (but notably comparatively decent to those who DID NOT).
So, we have the 50-80m dead from the good war. A significant percentage of them can only be described as non-resistors. But in the face of significant resistance from others … does the broad brush effect come into play. I obviously cling to the notion that Cheney may well order the men and women of the 82nd and 101st Airborne of the US Army to slaughter 50-80m, but that if those they opposed did not resist, these men and women (or the organized Airborne) would at some point disobey. They would simply stop. Some of these servicemen are my friends and relatives, and I believe they would at a point disobey. Indeed, a good friend was among the fabled in one of America’s more questioned military adventures … a “door gunner” based in Da Neng 101st Airborne, Gunnery Sargent ,self-enlisted, re-enlisted 2 tours. Esprit de corps become the fabric of participation. It had nothing to do with felling right or wrong, good or bad, it was a matter of “this is the circumstance, those are my friends/acquaintances, I will act to increase their survivability” The politics, the righteousness, this that the other thing … screw all that – there are a few guys around me I know, I will do everything can to secure their safety (which in that situation often involved what can only be described as raining down indiscriminant suppressing fire, front to back side to side lawnmower fashion. My understanding, from memorabilia, artifacts and such is, the individual was certainly capable in this capacity. And yes, I did visit a range with the dude once, and yes, he can hit really really small things from a very very long ways away with a remarkably brief couple of “get to know you” rounds.
As is usually my experience, this individual largely did not support the politics, it seems most never do. And here I find my recurring theme … those doing the deed rarely in congruence morally with those ordering the deed. Would not such armed conflicts dissolve if either side did not afford the legitimacy and urgency afforded by armed resistance?
I know, pretty boring thoughts, but nevertheless something I think about when trying to rationalize the human capacity for war in the face of the considerable human disdain for so much of its prosecution and consequence.
Britain saw India. The US saw King. Both backed down. The argument would be “Hitler would never backdown” … to which I say, Hitler never fought … Would the !Wehrmacht! stop in the absence of resistance?
Even if it took them a while to fold their moral tent? 1m, 2m, 10m …. Seriously moving though 10m humans in the absence of armed opposition it would seem would likely erode the moral capacity for such depravity. The good war was 50-80m … seriously, does anybody think that machine would have walked through 50-80m folks who provided no armed resistance?
On the flip side, threaten my family in such a manner and I will try to kill you. Obviously, I am no Gandhi.
So, what about the Wehrmacht? Is that unit so different from the
| 