Non-Violence and the Nazis
Would Non-Violence have worked? Is Pacifism/Non-violence always applicable?
Non-Violence and the Nazis
The argument that “non-violence” against the Nazis wouldn’t have worked doesn’t pan out for a number of reasons. Firstly, and most importantly, the “Global Deep State”, which was responsible for World War One (which the British started), made a Second World War inevitable by means of the terms of the Treaty of Versailles. Secondly, Germany was rearming in the 1920s (American investors had bought up the arms industry, although it was, at that point in time unprofitable) and German rearmament was reasonable given that neither the French nor the British had disarmed (as they had promised to). The German military was, in 1939, relatively weak (they were largely dependent on Czech tanks) and the British and French relatively strong. Thirdly, as Sutton proved beyond any shadow of a doubt, the Nazis were financed by Wall Street and the Bank of England and were used as a means of propping up a failing Zionist colony in Palestine (had it not been for the help of the Nazis the proto-Zionist state would have failed). Fourthly, a Jewish boycott against the Nazis would have worked had the Zionists (with mafia-like threats to the lives of those involved) not sabotaged it in 1933-4. Fifthly, the Nazis, rightly, saw Germany threatened by the British and French military build-up in 1935-39. This enabled them to characterise the attacks of 1939-40 as defensive, which is what they essentially were (the Americans tricked the Poles into taking an extremely aggressive stance in negotiations and many Poles thought they could defeat Germany, which is why they attacked German trains and planes and provoked war in 1939). Sixthly, had the Nazis not attacked France in 1940, France and Britain would have attacked the Soviet Union (the British had sent a force to attack Russia but the Finns made peace just before it arrived). In other words: The Global Deep State wanted war (to fund the arms industry, to boost the economy, to justify high taxes and enforce tighter political, social and psychological control (we have been living with the all-dominant Orwellian, kleptocratic, military-intelligence-industrial-police state ever since)). Fighting in the Soviet Army might have entailed involvement in the Katyn Massacre or simply the murder of fellow Russians (Stalin killed even more people than Hitler). The best option is to simply refuse getting involved in the entire killing machine (all ORGANIZED violence is evil, as Kant pointed out centuries ago). And peaceful demonstrations against the Nazis did work. Thus, the Germans stopped the killing of the handicapped by means of peaceful protests. In short: NON-VIOLENCE (Pacifism) is ALWAYS the only way forward.
I don’t know enough about the history of Nazi Germany to be sure about all those premises in your argument, though I’m far more inclined to believe them than most Westerners. But the conclusion, “NON-VIOLENCE (Pacifism) is ALWAYS the only way forward” does not follow. I’d like to believe it, but before I could be convinced I would need further contextualization with many more historical examples. All the same, your argument raises considerable doubt about the claim that non-violence against the Nazis wouldn’t have worked.
Another question that needs to be asked is whether a non-violence movement within Great Britain and Allies would have been possible. Would it not have been crushed? Was it not in fact crushed? The same questions can be asked of non-violence movements within Germany. It seems that the internal dynamics of nations/tribes is such that, tragically, the war-mongers rise to positions of power.