Quote:
Originally Posted by Halk
That is something I can agree with.
As far as WW2, it's an example I picked because I felt it was far and above the conflict where most people would feel it was necessary to become involved. As far as the boat to France, I meant it simply as the nearest Nazi held place to GB.
Sparrow - You have defined the very essence of the problem. I could, with very strong conviction, argue against either a yes or a no answer... and indeed against a maybe!
omk3 - That's a very interesting proposal. I think I might end up on a very small island as the only person in my country... 
Perhaps this will help explain things.
As a UK subject would you join the war effort if...
1. Nazi Germany invades the UK
2. Nazi Germany invades France
3. Nazi Germany invades Poland
4. Nazi Germany declares that it is starting to train troops and stockpile arms to invade the UK
5. Nazi Germany declares that it is starting to train troops and stockpile arms to invade the France
6. Nazi Germany declares that it is starting to train troops and stockpile arms to invade Poland
7. Nazi Germany declares that it is starting to train troops and stockpile arms to annex a small part of Poland
I hope it's not too much of an assumption to say that we would all join the war effort for 1, but that by 7 most of us would not.
My point is that if we don't do number 7 because 80% of the population object... then do we do 4 when 50% object? Can we do 2 when 5% object?
If we go to war when 5% object then why is it fair for members of my family to die, but members of another family who disagree with the war not to die. Surely everybody must sacrifice, and put themselves at risk of death for it to be fair.
If we force people to fight when they object to it then are we not monsters on the same level as the Nazis? Or is exiling and deporting them, and directly putting them into Nazi hands an equally cruel or even worse act?
If we don't go to war because 15% object and 85% want to, then how is that fair on the 85%? Won't they then argue that war is inevitable and more loss of life will occur because of waiting? Or would they argue that by not going to war we are permitting the Nazis to murder at will across Poland, France, etc.
It's one of those philosophical/moral dilemas with no right answer that everybody agrees with. If we don't stand together and form some sort of government then we'll be killed/stolen from etc one by one. If we do group together then we need to make some form of compromise.
My point, if it is at all clear, is that there are no simple answers. |
Definitely no simple answers, but I think anything we can do to reduce unnecessary fear and violence at any level is not only right, but worthwhile in the long run.
The hypothetical on WWII are extremely hard to answer. At what point is war truly war? At what point is it merely a matter of defending yourself or dying? Too many questions, not enough answers, and lets face it even during WWII Britain had to conscript people, despite the overwhelming and immediate pressures that were faced.
So I suppose the question, at least in my mind, becomes at what point is an armed struggle unavoidable and which side do you then choose if any? Of course if the mainland of your country was attacked by a military force then it would certainly be more of a cut and dry choice. I imagine that many of the citizens in Iraq and Afghanistan are facing this very choice as we speak. But what if you couldn't do this, what if the sensible option was to form a resistance or a guerilla movement under the noses of the invading forces? I think I'd be part of that, myself. Violence towards people is not within my natural urges, but violence toward property I would not flinch at performing.
There's my answer. Whatever I did I would do my utmost not to directly or indirectly hurt another human being. I would resist an oppressive force, but only in so much as my ability to disrupt and halt their means of progression. I would never touch a gun or a bullet.
In the end I believe it is always fear and horrible greed that puts us into wars. The same fear I'm sure a great many of the German public felt during the reign of the Third Reich. A fear that may have turned them away from doing the right thing in relation to the concentration camps, but in no way excuses what we did to Dresden or what the Americans did to Nagasaki and Hiroshima.
We should learn from all these mistakes and see that these wars are preventable, that the only people who benefit are the people making money, everyone else is left devastated on both sides.