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.
Non-violence is always the way forward because violence generates violence and violence can always be justified by further violence (attack is invariably defence). I will deal with this in more detail when dealing with Kant who argued that it is standing armies that generate wars (money is borrowed from banks and repaid in plunder). What would have happened if there had been a powerful, international peace movement in the 1930s? The war would have been impossible!
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.
Non-violence is always the way forward because violence generates violence and violence can always be justified by further violence (attack is invariably defence). I will deal with this in more detail when dealing with Kant who argued that it is standing armies that generate wars (money is borrowed from banks and repaid in plunder). What would have happened if there had been a powerful, international peace movement in the 1930s? The war would have been impossible!