War and Peace

[Paidiske]

Ha! My reply turned out to be too big to post at once. Let me try this in pieces.

I can agree with this, but what I asked was where the line was between the type of violent action that you had agreed was sometimes necessary and justified (violent police response to prevent imminent killing) and the type of violent action you consider unjustified (participation in war). When do things cross a line from one to the other? Is it a matter of scale (X number of deaths), or of organization (individuals vs. small units of irregulars like a neighborhood watch sort of situation vs. regiments of soldiers) or of goal (defense vs. offense), or what? Simply saying "Don't kill" or "Kill as little as possible" doesn't answer that. I would hope we would all agree to statements such as those.

I don't think there are neat abstract arguments about some of this stuff.


But war is not self-defence. War is not police protection against violent criminals. War is indiscriminate, sustained, intentional mass killing.

Keep in mind that you had earlier written (paraphrasing) that you understand that "shoot or be shot" situations sometimes lead to violence including killing, and that such killing couldn't be categorically condemned. This introduces some ambiguity into the question of killing in war, as combat in warfare is a lot of such situations occurring at once, so using your logic we cannot say that by virtue of participating in warfare, soldiers are by definition to be condemned if they've killed someone.

But those soldiers have chosen to be there. They've chosen to go to war, chosen to be trained to kill, chosen to put themselves in a combat situation, etc. You can't do all of that, and then, when you've shot someone (even if he would have shot you first) turn around and credibly say, "Oops, it was self-defence," as if you had no idea that situation might arise.

Such a thing is definitely not allowed in Orthodoxy, and that is my own standard, so I'm sticking with it.

If your churches are open to the public, you wouldn't even necessarily know. That said, broadly speaking, my attitude is if people want to pray, generally the best thing I can do is get out of the way and let them pray. The Almighty is more than capable of handling that encounter.

Massacres likes those perpetuated on the Yazidis in our time or on the Assyrians in Simele, Iraq in 1933 are the wholesale mass killing of people, too...should those not be resisted, with force if necessary?

But with the absolute minimum force necessary. Not with justification that killing is somehow good because it's being done for a good cause.


And if we were taking a pacifist approach seriously, we'd have addressed the conditions which gave rise to ISIL (as JohnDB noted upthread) long, long before it got to that point!

It seems to me that if you define war as unnecessary killing, then you much more easily get to your answers concerning topics such as this one, but I don't think that's the most honest exploration of the question.

I'm questioning the notion that there is ever "necessary killing," even in war. And that applies to both sides and especially the aggressor; it is not a particular undermining of brutalised minorities who are faced with working out the limits of self-defence.

But I'm not affirming a despairing worldview. You're calling it that and then saying that I'm affirming it. What I'm actually saying is more or less an affirmation of what HG said in the Syriac Orthodox video I posted earlier: that it is better to die than to be a slave.

And I'm questioning that. Is it? Or where there is life, is there hope?

Of course it wasn't the least worst way, but we don't live in the least worst world to begin with, so I don't know what that's even supposed to mean.

I am questioning the oft-repeated narrative that a war in which some 75 million people died was somehow a good, noble or necessary enterprise. Even for the allies, we cannot defend the way "we" fought. Resistance to Hitler, yeah, okay, I can see that there's a point where the allies are backed into a corner and fighting seems like the best way; but the nuclear bombs, the bombing of Dresden; these are not justifiable actions!

when we try to get rid of those like ISIS, who most clearly stand in the way of what the majority of people in the world otherwise agree on, we read from you and people of your mentality that this is wrong to do. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

If by "get rid of" you mean, mass slaughter, then yeah, of course it's wrong.

 

[Paidiske]

When self defense occurs at a national level it is called war. It's that simple. When 50,000 troops invade your country and you mobilize 100,000 to defend it that's war. In such cases there is no self defense without war. You cannot believe in self-defense without also believing in defensive wars.

Of course I can.

So that's not what justice is. The dictionaries are not in competition on this one. Alleviating inhumane conditions can be a form of justice, but justice and human flourishing aren't the same thing. Maybe we're just stuck on an equivocation.

I was offering a theological, rather than secular, definition of justice.

But you keep beating around the bush and avoiding the basic questions.

Not intentionally, although I think some of the questions being raised are irrelevant.

A true pacifist would have to say that going to war with Hitler was wrong, whether in 1939 or 1944. Was it? Lots of people on the Allied side preferred neutrality far into the war.

War is wrong; it was wrong in 1939 and in 1944. I noted upthread that the civilian casualties in WWII were more than double the military casualties. We cannot pretend that the Allies conducted themselves with some sort of ethical purity; they did not.

If we are to take a pacifist approach seriously then we can't justify war when "other alternatives had closed." You can either be a pacifist or else you can admit that it was permissible (or even just) to go to war with Hitler. You have to pick one. You can't have both.

You can - as dzheremi has noted so eloquently - find yourself in the middle of a war you did not choose. The question then is how you respond so as to minimise the human cost. The Allies made many bad choices in that regard.

How is that a logical position? All the killings done as a part of war are magically murder?

Not magically; objectively. Part of a deliberate, wilful campaign of mass killing.

There's a very thin line between that and Holocaust denial.

I don't quite know how you got there, but for the record, I'm nowhere near Holocaust denial.

John Doe points a gun at me and I shoot him in self-defense. Hitler sends his Luftwaffe to Britain and they attack Hitler in self-defense. What's the difference?

"They attack Hitler" is the difference. You didn't set out to kill John Doe and his family and bomb his town to rubble. The bombing of Dresden cannot be framed as "self-defence."

This is what you seem to be saying. Suppose, analogously, Hitler is a serial killer in Australia. Your position is that when Hitler is engaged in an attempt to murder one of his victims, then that victim (and no one else) is permitted to defend themselves. When they are no longer in imminent danger they are no longer allowed to attack Hitler. No one may assume the role of the "aggressor" and attack Hitler directly. Only "self defense" is allowed. So Hitler sustains injuries here and there but recovers and regains his strength. Eventually he murders everyone in Australia who he dislikes. The Jews, the gays, and the handicapped are all dead and gone. No one is allowed to attack Hitler directly because Paidiske thinks this would be immoral. That is a very, very strange position. I don't find it "even slightly convincing."

Suppose Hitler is a serial killer in Australia... there are a whole range of possible responses to serial killers which fall short of killing them. As is evidenced by the fact that we have Martin Bryant and Julian Knight in prison for life (for example).

Do you think you have a high view of human life? You would rather see Jews gassed by the millions and combatants mowed down by the tens of millions than lift a finger to forcibly oppose Hitler. That's not a high view of human life, and it's not a virtue. It's just the opposite. Those who are unwilling to defend life do not care about life.

That is both untrue, and coming rather close to flaming under CF's rules. We might disagree, but let's try to do so amicably?[/QUOTE]

 

[Paidiske]

I can’t think of any Christian writer who abhorred the use of military arms in the way radical pacifists like yourself did.

Google is your friend:


"Several Church Fathers interpreted Jesus' teachings as advocating nonviolence.[11] For example:


I do not wish to be a king; I am not anxious to be rich; I decline military command... Die to the world, repudiating the madness that is in it.


— Tatian's Address to the Greeks 11[12]

Whatever Christians would not wish others to do to them, they do not to others. And they comfort their oppressors and make them their friends; they do good to their enemies…. Through love towards their oppressors, they persuade them to become Christians.


— The Apology of Aristides 15[13]

A soldier of the civil authority must be taught not to kill men and to refuse to do so if he is commanded, and to refuse to take an oath. If he is unwilling to comply, he must be rejected for baptism. A military commander or civic magistrate must resign or be rejected. If a believer seeks to become a soldier, he must be rejected, for he has despised God.


— Hippolytus of Rome[14]

One soul cannot be due to two masters—God and Cæsar. And yet Moses carried a rod, and Aaron wore a buckle, and John (Baptist) is girt with leather and Joshua the son of Nun leads a line of march; and the People warred: if it pleases you to sport with the subject. But how will a Christian man war, nay, how will he serve even in peace, without a sword, which the Lord has taken away? For albeit soldiers had come unto John, and had received the formula of their rule; albeit, likewise, a centurion had believed; still the Lord afterward, in disarming Peter, unbelted every soldier. No dress is lawful among us, if assigned to any unlawful action.


— Tertullian, On Idolatry Chapter 19: Concerning Military Service

For since we, a numerous band of men as we are, have learned from His teaching and His laws that evil ought not to be requited with evil, that it is better to suffer wrong than to inflict it, that we should rather shed our own blood than stain our hands and our conscience with that of another, an ungrateful world is now for a long period enjoying a benefit from Christ, inasmuch as by His means the rage of savage ferocity has been softened, and has begun to withhold hostile hands from the blood of a fellow-creature.


— Arnobius, Adversus Gentes I:VI[15]

Consider the roads blocked up by robbers, the seas beset with pirates, wars scattered all over the earth with the bloody horror of camps. The whole world is wet with mutual blood; and murder, which in the case of an individual is admitted to be a crime, is called a virtue when it is committed wholesale.


— Cyprian of Carthage[16]

Those soldiers were filled with wonder and admiration at the grandeur of the man's piety and generosity and were struck with amazement. They felt the force of this example of pity. As a result, many of them were added to the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ and threw off the belt of military service.


— Disputation of Archelaus and Manes[17]

How can a man be master of another's life, if he is not even master of his own? Hence he ought to be poor in spirit, and look at Him who for our sake became poor of His own will; let him consider that we are all equal by nature, and not exalt himself impertinently against his own race[...]


— Gregory of Nyssa, Homilies on the Beatitudes[18]"


(A sample from Wikipedia)

If you accept the use of force and compulsion in one instance, why utterly reject in the other? The only people consistent on this point are Libertarians who argue that the use of force on others is always illegitimate, hence they argue taxation is theft and if I agreed with their premises I would be forced to accept them.

I'm not a Libertarian; I am happy to argue that participation in a society gives us both responsibilities as well as rights. However, I would argue that the legitimate authority of the state has limits, and one of those limits is that it does not have the right to take lives; those of its citizens or those who are not its citizens.

It’s not that I don’t regret the loss of life, but If I were to make an analysis and ask was it worth it. I would say it absolutely was. We also have to consider the types of people we’re talking about when we’re discussing war casualties or even the causes of war. So let’s accept that ten million number.


How many of the ten million were soldiers? A majority I would think since they would be doing the fighting. I do not feel as bad for them and I admire the tenacity of those men on the Christian side for willing to fight for a Christian Iberia. How many of those ten million were slaves? Perhaps women captured in raids and sold as sex slaves to powerful Islamic lords, forced to have their children and then be told that they must be raised as Muslims? (Should they have accepted that situation in humility and not fight back? Perhaps rather die than suffer such a fate?)

I cannot accept the argument that it was worth it. The value of human life far exceeds the political outcome.


Side note, but in most conflicts, civilian casualties outnumber the deaths of soldiers. Not that the death of soldiers is good either, but one might at least argue that they had chosen that risk.

If you disagree and view that the risk was not worth that cost, tell me why pacifism would have made the world better.

Because those lives, whether lived under Christian or Muslim rule, had value. And they deserved to be lived in peace, or at least the best peace that could have been managed.


I am also not buying the idea that Islam is some overwhelming evil which is so terrible that it's better to die than live in a Muslim culture.

What is the function of a state? It is to maintain order in society and defend its citizens.

I'd argue that the function of the state is to promote the flourishing of its citizens. Which it can't do if it's busy sending them off to be killed.

Where you seem the err the most is in suggesting that there is always a peaceful solution to a problem.

I am open to the possibility that there might not be. But in general, we (as in, western culture) tend to reach for the violent solutions before even considering the peaceful ones, and then we go on to say how good and right and noble our mass killing is!

And what, bring them to the west? Where they will likely be assimilated into a culture of secularism within a few generations. Losing their sense of identity as Armenians, gradually losing their faith like the most other western countries? Coming to imbibe the poison which is our western way of being? You’ll forgive me if I think it better for the Armenians to retain their identity, to maintain their people and faith and continue living as Armenians rather than give up and settle for becoming Australians or New Zealanders or (god help us) Canadians.

At the price of many lives? No, I won't forgive that, or at least, won't give it a free pass. Even if your projected outcomes are accurate, which they may very well not be.

Except it isn’t evil to kill people.

This. This is what I take issue with. Of course it is. Grievously and gravely evil. The deliberate ending of a human life, created unique and precious and loved by God, is always evil. That it may sometimes be necessary does not mean we should shy away from recognising it as the awful evil that it is.

It is not evil to defend your friend. It is not evil to defend your family. It is not evil to defend your nation.

It may be, depending on the form of your "defence." And especially for nations, which are abstract concepts, at best.

 

[dzheremi]

But war is not self-defence.

Except when it is, like when the Ethiopians, who had done nothing to the Italians, fought off attempts at colonization twice. Is that not Ethiopians defending themselves?

War is not police protection against violent criminals. War is indiscriminate, sustained, intentional mass killing.

I don't know that it is always indiscriminate, and there's a question as to how 'sustained' something has to be to be considered a war. There have been some very short wars in history. The shortest war in history, the Anglo-Zanzibar War, famously lasted less than an hour.

This is part of the problem when you define war only in these very fuzzy terms that make some things seem like war that most people would not agree are war. Things like the November 2015 Paris attacks at the Bataclan during a heavy metal concert and elsewhere in the city (a sports stadium and several bars) definitely fit your description: they're indiscriminate (concert-goers were killed not due to any distinguishing characteristics, but just because they were there), sustained (the attacks began on November 13th and didn't end until the next day), and involved the intentional mass killing of over 130 people and the injuring of over 400. President Hollande even called the attacks an act of war. But were they? Did two armies meet each other on any kind of battlefield? No. Or at least not unless you see things as the terrorists do and declare France to be the battlefield.

So that's not a war, and yet it fits everything that you say war is.

But those soldiers have chosen to be there.

So what? According to you, it doesn't matter where anyone is, so why shouldn't they go there and take over the country? The war'll be over if everyone just cedes their land to whichever force "chooses to be there", right? And then nobody ever has to die...until lik I wrote before, they run out of 'other' places to go.

That is what doesn't work about what your espousing in this thread: you're assuming too much about human motivations. Have you never seen that episode of the Simpsons where one of the family wishes for world peace using a wish-granting monkey's paw, and then it is magically instantly achieved and then the world gets invaded by space aliens who are able to take it over with no resistance whatsoever? It's pretty silly of course (I think one of the humans gets the bright idea to chase the aliens off with a big board with a nail stuck through it), but it makes a good point: peace is great until you realize that not everyone is on the same page about it.

They've chosen to go to war, chosen to be trained to kill, chosen to put themselves in a combat situation, etc.

Okay, and the people that they're coming to indiscriminately kill (according to you) have chosen to be there. Why don't they just leave? After all, it doesn't matter where anyone is, right? Or is generations upon generations of life as refugees suddenly not acceptable to you for some reason? You seemed fine with consigning the entire population of Armenia to such a life a few posts ago, if doing so would prevent them from fighting for their land and their right to live on it. (Better to let the rapacious Turks fight for it so that they can live on it instead, right? After all, there's no way that that could involve any indiscriminate sustained killing. )

You can't do all of that, and then, when you've shot someone (even if he would have shot you first) turn around and credibly say, "Oops, it was self-defence," as if you had no idea that situation might arise.

This is so disingenuous that I'm not even going to bother to address it. In fact, I'm done with this conversation. I think your ideas are unworkable in the extreme, do not take into account the actual reality of the world (including especially the reality that your fellow Christians in the Middle East, North Africa, and parts of Asia have faced historically and continue to face in many places), and I'm glad your ideas do not have wide currency in the churches most affected by war in the modern day.

I'm proud of the Bashmurians and their attempt to rid Egypt of the Muslim invaders, as well as the others involved in the 300 years of resistance to the invasion of Egypt by the Arab barbarians (it may have failed, but it was still right to not give up their right to live freely as God has created all of us).

I'm proud against the Christian kingdoms of Spain and Portugal that waged the world's longest war (781 years) to finally free their peninsula from the Muslim invaders. May they never come back.

I'm proud of the Greeks, Slavs, Armenians, Albanians and all the others in Europe who fought against the Turkocratia and were actually successful in ridding the world of it. May it never come back, either.

I'm proud of the entire world for beating the Nazis and the Fascists in WWII. I may not agree with every aspect or every individual action undertaken during the war, but I sure am glad I live in a world where the Third Reich doesn't still exist, and the Jewish people still do, and where Japan is primarily known for Hello Kitty and robots rather than murder and occupation of other countries in Asia. Thank you everybody, including Australia.

I'm proud of the Iraqi and international forces of all backgrounds who drove ISIS out of their strongholds in northern Iraq, and continue to be vigilant in their patrols of those areas to keep the people (shell-shocked war refugees) of the region safe. May the same occur in the beleaguered and exhausted areas of Syria, Yemen, Nigeria, and all the other terrorist hotspots the world is sadly plagued with today, with those who care about the preservation of their fellow man (the sanctity of life) rising up to oust the terrorist elements in their own societies.

If being proud of any of these people or their victories over evil forces makes me a bad Christian, then I suppose I'll just have to wear that label. I'm a bad Christian, then. Better to be a bad Christian in a world that is not overrun by Nazis perpetuating genocide in the name of racist pseudo-science than to be a good Christian in a world that is. God willing the world will some day be able to say the same regarding ISIS, Al Nusra, Al Qaeda, Boko Haram, Al Shabab, the Abu Sayyaf, etc.

 

[zippy2006]

War is wrong; it was wrong in 1939 and in 1944. I noted upthread that the civilian casualties in WWII were more than double the military casualties. We cannot pretend that the Allies conducted themselves with some sort of ethical purity; they did not.

I did not ask you if the Allies conducted themselves with ethical purity. I asked you if war with Hitler was justifiable. Was it?

You can - as dzheremi has noted so eloquently - find yourself in the middle of a war you did not choose. The question then is how you respond so as to minimise the human cost. The Allies made many bad choices in that regard.

So are you going to answer the question or just continue beating around the bush?

That is both untrue,

I don't believe it is untrue in the least.

 

[Paidiske]

Except when it is, like when the Ethiopians, who had done nothing to the Italians, fought off attempts at colonization twice. Is that not Ethiopians defending themselves?

I'm not prepared to say that colonisation should be resisted with force, though (even though I am at the same time saying that colonisation is bad and wrong).

So that's not a war, and yet it fits everything that you say war is.

Including wrong and evil.

So what? According to you, it doesn't matter where anyone is, so why shouldn't they go there and take over the country?

That is also wrong! I am not arguing that anyone should just muscle in anywhere and take what they want. Of course not. But we are arguing here about whether war is anything other than evil, and I'm saying it's always evil, even when what started it is someone doing something that is also evil.

Okay, and the people that they're coming to indiscriminately kill (according to you) have chosen to be there. Why don't they just leave?

Yes, the criticism applies equally to all "sides" of an armed conflict. None are in the right.

If being proud of any of these people or their victories over evil forces makes me a bad Christian, then I suppose I'll just have to wear that label.

I am not labelling you a bad Christian. But I cannot take any pride in actions which so profoundly violate the gospel.

 

[Paidiske]

I did not ask you if the Allies conducted themselves with ethical purity. I asked you if war with Hitler was justifiable. Was it?

No, I don't think it was, ultimately.

I don't believe it is untrue in the least.

You accused me of preferring the Holocaust to war with Hitler. That is untrue. I do not "rather" either. I am quite willing to profoundly condemn both.

 

[zippy2006]

No, I don't think it was, ultimately.

Okay, well thanks for the clear answer.

You accused me of preferring the Holocaust to war with Hitler. That is untrue. I do not "rather" either. I am quite willing to profoundly condemn both.

Because you are unwilling to go to war with Hitler in order to stop the Holocaust you prefer the Holocaust to war with Hitler, whether or not you condemn both. My point is that, given such a fact, I see no reason why your view of human life is particularly high. Your characteristically modern view is unable to distinguish innocent humans from guilty humans. Therefore, when you see the innocent being oppressed by the guilty, you are unable to aggressively repel the guilty (when necessary). Such a view is emphatically not that of the Christian God, Marcionism aside.

And to conclude our conversation on just war theory, I remain unconvinced that you understand it. Throughout this thread you have consistently argued against the same things that just war theorists argue against, such as malicious domination, undue collateral damage, targeting of civilians, etc. The problem is that you argue against such things and take such arguments to have force against just war theory. In reality just war theory argues against these same things. This is a classic example of a strawman. Things like Dresden and Hiroshima were certainly atrocities that should be repudiated, but that does not mean that going to war with Hitler was a mistake or was unjustifiable.

 

[Paidiske]

Because you are unwilling to go to war with Hitler in order to stop the Holocaust you prefer the Holocaust to war with Hitler, whether or not you condemn both.

That is not true. Because I insist the price of stopping Hitler need not have been 75 million lives, does not mean that I prefer or would accept or would not act against the Holocaust.

Why do so many people see this as an immutable binary - warfare or nothing - as if the whole range of human actions in between those extremes were not open to us?

My point is that, given such a fact, I see no reason why your view of human life is particularly high.

I insist that we cannot take life and call it good or right to do so. Because human life is too precious for ending it to ever be a good thing. Even if the life ended is of a guilty person or an aggressor or an oppressor.

And to conclude our conversation on just war theory, I remain unconvinced that you understand it. Throughout this thread you have consistently argued against the same things that just war theorists argue against, such as malicious domination, undue collateral damage, targeting of civilians, etc. The problem is that you argue against such things and take such arguments to have force against just war theory. In reality just war theory argues against these same things. This is a classic example of a strawman. Things like Dresden and Hiroshima were certainly atrocities that should be repudiated, but that does not mean that going to war with Hitler was a mistake or was unjustifiable.

But just war theorists argue that there can be a good, right, or "just" war. And I do not accept that.

 

[zippy2006]

That is not true. Because I insist the price of stopping Hitler need not have been 75 million lives, does not mean that I prefer or would accept or would not act against the Holocaust.

No, it is true. If war were the only option to stop Hitler you wouldn't do it. That is your position as I understand it.

Why do so many people see this as an immutable binary - warfare or nothing - as if the whole range of human actions in between those extremes were not open to us?

Because that is a red herring. We are specifically talking about a case where alternatives were not available.

I insist that we cannot take life and call it good or right to do so. Because human life is too precious for ending it to ever be a good thing. Even if the life ended is of a guilty person or an aggressor or an oppressor.

And I insist that such is a perverted form of compassion.

But just war theorists argue that there can be a good, right, or "just" war. And I do not accept that.

Yes, but in order to disagree with just war theory you would have to take up an example that just war theorists believe is just and argue that it is unjust. All you've done in this thread is take up examples that just war theorists believe are unjust and argue that they are unjust. That doesn't get us anywhere. ...Well, I suppose we did make some progress on Hitler after enough tooth-pulling.

 

[Paidiske]

No, it is true. If war were the only option to stop Hitler you wouldn't do it. That is your position as I understand it.

My position is that I reject the premise that war is/was ever the only option. To be a pacifist is about more than rejecting war; it is about insisting on active peace-building as a consistent way of life.

Because that is a red herring. We are specifically talking about a case where alternatives were not available.

I don't believe that, though.

Yes, but in order to disagree with just war theory you would have to take up an example that just war theorists believe is just and argue that it is unjust.

Without having the time and energy to put into turning this into an academic exercise, I'm kind of doing that, in saying that I reject the premise that any war can be truly just.

 

[zippy2006]

My position is that I reject the premise that war is/was ever the only option. To be a pacifist is about more than rejecting war; it is about insisting on active peace-building as a consistent way of life.

I don't believe that, though.

I am saying that, "If war were the only option to stop Hitler, you still would not do it." You respond by refusing the counterfactual, "War is never the only option to achieve some good end."

To cut to the point: what if war were the only option to stop Hitler? Lots of really smart people thought it was, so it's not like this "counterfactual" is beyond the pale. I see no point in refusing to consider it. If war were the only option to stop Hitler, would you do it?

Without having the time and energy to put into turning this into an academic exercise, I'm kind of doing that, in saying that I reject the premise that any war can be truly just.

But each time you reject a war or a scenario it is on the basis of just war criteria, so you're really not doing that. I could go back through the thread and quote you if you'd like.

 

[Paidiske]

I am saying that, "If war were the only option to stop Hitler, you still would not do it." You respond by refusing the counterfactual, "War is never the only option to achieve some good end."

To cut to the point: what if war were the only option to stop Hitler?

I reject the premise and the hypothetical. It never was the only option. Entertaining the idea that war might be the only option is the first step to justifying abhorrent evil. I won't go there.

 

[zippy2006]

I reject the premise and the hypothetical. It never was the only option. Entertaining the idea that war might be the only option is the first step to justifying abhorrent evil. I won't go there.

You already did:

There was probably a point, with Hitler, where other alternatives had closed.

...So again, it seems like a fair "hypothetical." Running away from it is a kind of willful ignorance with respect to the logical conclusion of your views. You are literally refusing to consider a possibility that a significant number of people believed was an actuality during World War II. You are refusing to consider a possibility that you inclined towards yesterday.

As you like, though.

 

[Paidiske]

You already did:

...So again, it seems like a fair "hypothetical."

But history did not begin at that moment (wherever we might pinpoint that moment). There might have been a point at which stopping the war was not really possible (once the troops were already busy killing one another, say). But there were six years of Hitler's rule before the outbreak of war. There was time before that where international treatment of Germany contributed to his rise. There was WWI and all that it created.

WWII was not some inevitable thing that had to happen. It happened because human beings made choices.

You are literally refusing to consider a possibility that a significant number of people believed was an actuality during World War II.

Lots of people in WWII believed getting rid of all the Jews was the "final solution" to Germany's woes, too. Just because people in WWII believed something does not make it binding on me/us, rather we ought to be critical of their mistakes in light of the horrors involved.

 

[zippy2006]

But history did not begin at that moment (wherever we might pinpoint that moment). There might have been a point at which stopping the war was not really possible (once the troops were already busy killing one another, say). But there were six years of Hitler's rule before the outbreak of war. There was time before that where international treatment of Germany contributed to his rise. There was WWI and all that it created.

WWII was not some inevitable thing that had to happen. It happened because human beings made choices.

Lol - you're doing that red herring thing again. If you admit that there was a point when war was the only option to stop Hitler then we're not even in semi-academic territory. Would you have gone to war with Hitler at that point when there were no alternatives? Yes or no?

Lots of people in WWII believed getting rid of all the Jews was the "final solution" to Germany's woes, too. Just because people in WWII believed something does not make it binding on me/us, rather we ought to be critical of their mistakes in light of the horrors involved.

Sure, but you're going to completely dismiss it as a possibility and entirely refuse hypotheticals based on it? When you yourself agreed with it yesterday?

 

[Paidiske]

If you admit that there was a point when war was the only option to stop Hitler then we're not even in semi-academic territory. Would you have gone to war with Hitler at that point when there were no alternatives? Yes or no?

At that point, they're already at war. I would do everything possible, at that point, to end the war.

Sure, but you're going to completely dismiss it as a possibility and entirely refuse hypotheticals based on it?

Yes.

When you yourself agreed with it yesterday?

I may not have made myself clear yesterday, but at no point have I believe that war - even WWII - was "the only option," or in any way right, good, or just.

 

[zippy2006]

At that point, they're already at war. I would do everything possible, at that point, to end the war.

Different countries entered the war at different times for different reasons. There is no reason that certain countries could not have been neutral at that point when war became the only option to stop Hitler. That's actually when some countries tended to enter into the war.

Yes.

That's unfortunate. I have no magical powers to force people to consider their own views in the light of highly relevant hypotheticals. I suppose this ends our conversation. Let me know if you change your mind.

I may not have made myself clear yesterday, but at no point have I believe that war - even WWII - was "the only option," or in any way right, good, or just.

You said, "There was probably a point, with Hitler, where other alternatives had closed." In one day you went from inclining towards the view that war was the only option to stop Hitler, to refusing to even consider the possibility that war was the only option to stop him. That's utterly strange.

 

[Paidiske]

Different countries entered the war at different times for different reasons. There is no reason that certain countries could not have been neutral at that point when war became the only option to stop Hitler. That's actually when countries tended to enter into the war.

Ah. I think I misread something. I do not believe there was any point where war was "the only option to stop Hitler." There would have come a point for various countries where they were embroiled at war and they had no reasonable option to be immediately be not at war; in effect at that point "other alternatives had closed."

That's unfortunate. I have no magical powers to force people to consider their own views in the light of highly relevant hypotheticals. I suppose this ends our conversation. Let me know if you change your mind.

Since I consider the hypothetical highly unethical and bordering on blasphemous, it's not likely to be any time soon.

You said, "There was probably a point, with Hitler, where other alternatives had closed." In one day you went from inclining towards the view that war was the only option to stop Hitler, to refusing to even consider the possibility that war was the only option to stop him. That's utterly strange.

See my above point. I may not have expressed myself utterly clearly. I am, after all, multi-tasking and not giving this my full attention.

(Although the conversation is providing me with an interesting series of parallel reflections as I prepare my sermon for Epiphany).

 

[zippy2006]

Ah. I think I misread something. I do not believe there was any point where war was "the only option to stop Hitler." There would have come a point for various countries where they were embroiled at war and they had no reasonable option to be immediately be not at war; in effect at that point "other alternatives had closed."

Here is the exchange:

I would actually say that anyone who thinks it was wrong to go to war with Hitler is morally tone-deaf.

There was probably a point, with Hitler, where other alternatives had closed. But if we are to take a pacifist approach seriously, then we need to look at what was happening in Europe long before that point.

Hey, it's not weird that you latched onto the idea that there was no alternative in WWII. That was the whole reason I brought it up. WWII presents war-as-a-last-resort. You picked up on that and agreed with it.

Now given the quote you were responding to I am not altogether convinced that you were talking about a strictly defensive war--especially given the countries where we live--but even on that notion we've made some progress. Earlier today you were refusing the legitimacy of defensive wars, though thankfully you were not entirely refusing to consider their possibility. Who knows what tomorrow may bring?

(Although the conversation is providing me with an interesting series of parallel reflections as I prepare my sermon for Epiphany).

Oh dear.