Do you believe the civil disobedience methods of Gandhi and MLK would have worked against Hitler?

[ZombieHorde]

Like most of you, I love MLK and Gandhi, but I don't think their methods would have worked against Hitler's efficient death factories.

I think violence was the only way to stop them. What do you think?

[elleng]

1. No, only physical power.

[Rittermeister]

2. Agreed

Civil disobedience only works when your oppressor has a modicum of cultural introspection and personal decency.

[The Magistrate]

3. No, Sir, They Would Not

Gandhi's did not even work all that well against England....

[Daniel537]

4. No.

Truly totalitarian regimes don't think twice about slaughtering innocents. Saddam, Stalin, Mao, Assad etc.... How people like that can live with themselves is beyond me.

[HiPointDem]

81. our own regime slaughters innocents & few people make peep one.

[cliffordu]

85. Comparing our "regime" to the ones listed is

a bogus posit.

[HiPointDem]

87. i didn't make any comparison. i said our own regime slaughters innocents & has all through its

history.

and few people make peep one.

but it's easy to find people to bash our regime's approved whipping boys.

[Egalitarian Thug]

89. Exactly. We have never really cared too much about the powerful

executing the weak in America.

[HiPointDem]

91. unless, of course, the weak are puppies and the 'powerful' are their owners. then there will be

cries for blood!

americans always focus on the important stuff.

[Egalitarian Thug]

96. Oh, of course, as always puppies, kittehs, and pretty blond girls are excluded...

And rich people, we do care a great deal about what happens to rich people. Of course they're usually the ones doing the executing.

[msongs]

5. no because the overwhemling majority of german christians loved hitler. he was NOT like the brits in

India or the sheriffs in the US south.

[RZM]

6. Are you talking about Germans themselves or the international community?

The Germans took most of it pretty much in stride. The Nazis put them back to work and restored some national honor after the humiliating 1920s.

An interesting and oft-noted thing about the outbreak of WWII is how unpopular it initially was in Germany. Everybody remembered how awful WWI had been, particularly the privations the population suffered because of the British blockade. There were no cheering crowds.

But the Germans also won a string of victories in 1939-1940, so the population began to think that maybe Hitler did know what he was doing. They were also starting to taste all of the loot at that point too. A friend of mine told me his German family told him that 1941 was awesome in Germany, because they had access to stuff like fine French wines and cheeses. So the Germans themselves were pretty much on board.

The international community is a different story. Ever since the war it's been pretty much accepted that they didn't do enough to contain Hitler. The Western and Soviet collective security regime from 1934-38 was pretty much a sham, because there was too much bad blood for either side to really come together against Hitler. When Hitler re-militarized the Rhineland in 1936, he was very worried the French would invade. But they didn't. This led him to believe that if the West wasn't going to get serious when he was weak, they would be even less likely to do so when he was strong.

One people wised, up, it was too late to cooperate - Stalin decided it was better to make a deal with Hitler directly.

[steve2470]

7. No.

It would have taken almost all of the SS, police, German Army, and population to exercise non-violence. From what I've read, that was not going to happen.

[Joe Shlabotnik]

33. In some respect that might have worked

to have prevented German aggression on its neighbors, by tying up the police and military, and crippling manufacturing for the war machine. But then again, seeing this opportunity, the Soviets could have attacked them first, perhaps in the guise of preventing a genocide. In reality though, peaceful resistance would never have happened because millions of Germans were complicit, and it would have a futile bloody affair.

[chollybocker]

8. I think Ghandi and MLK would win

in double OT, by a field goal. Hitler's defense sucked against the rush.

[RZM]

19. LOL n/t

[lpbk2713]

9. Those in his inner circle were sadistic and ruthless.

They crushed any hint of opposition.


Answer: No.

[Cleita]

10. This was a different situation.

A significant number of Germans, those who were acceptably Aryan that is, were on board with Hitler, like all the goobers who cheered Bush on and wanted to have a beer with him.

[Kaleva]

11. No. The more brutal the regime, the more brutal are the methods required to overthrow it

A German equivalent of Gandhi or MLK would have "disappeared" in Nazi Germany long before they gained a sizable following. And I'm sure there would have been many in Stalin's Russia that would have turned in the two for counter-revolutionary activities or thought in order to keep their own names off the list.

[RZM]

20. Interesting assessment

There really weren't all that many Germans that were strongly opposed to the Nazis. There were some, but not a whole lot. Many people simply went along with it.

Contrast that with the USSR, where the prison camp system and executions were much larger and more numerous. The Soviets shot more people from 1936-38 than died on both sides combined during the American Civil War. That is one reason why you had widespread Soviet collaboration with the Germans in 1941.

[roody]

12. Yes, but many many people would have died.

[Bjorn Against]

13. Depends on how many people participated, but under certain circumstances it could work

It would have taken a lot of people, but if a significant portion of the German public had gotten behind such a movement then yes it could work. A number of protesters however would most likely lose their lives in the process, although if the civil disobedience started in the early part of Hitler's time in power then it would have possibly prevented him from getting the death machine built because remember Hitler was in power several years before the Holocaust began. During those early years before the concentration camps Hitler would have been much more vulnerable to protests than he was during the height of the war.

[JI7]

14. no

[MrSlayer]

15. No way, the SS would have ended them before they got started.

Non-violence only works against a semi-civilized opponent.

[lunasun]

16. Hitler or the people who gave him power?

[limpyhobbler]

17. No, the protesters would have all been shot instantly.

And that would have been the end of that protest movement.

[marasinghe]

18. no.

nor would they have stopped European colonial occupations, Islamic invasions, Genghis Khan, the Vikings, Imperial Rome, Alexander, or any of the other thousands of armed mob movements, which the human species has perpetrated on the planet. The Buddha himself, could not persuade the ruler of the neighboring city-state from massacring The Buddha's own country & clan. i doubt anyone could stop an armed force in a killing frenzy, with non-violent civil disobedience.

the fact is: the large majority of the human species has the biological predilection of a wolf pack - mindlessly following the leader du-jour, plundering & killing on cue. the rest of us - a small minority - are Liberals.

[leveymg]

21. A few tried - White Rose Society - they were executed.

[Yupster]

22. There was a short story written

on this very topic.

Basic story is that England surrenders to Germany and Hitler's armies move into India.

Gandhi starts protesting. Field Marshall Model has been appointed Gauleiter of India. After one protest he orders Gandhi arrested.

The two of them hit it off, and they discuss systems of government and history for a while. Model tells Gandhi, "I like you little man. Stay out of trouble so I don't have to kill you."

A few days later, Model is told they managed to get some good German sausage in. He orders some made for lunch, but them is told that Gandhi is protesting again right outside the headquarters.

A few minutes later, Gandhi is brought before the Field Marshall again. "Oh it's you Gandhi. Didn't I tell you to behave yourself? Oh well, take him outside and shoot him. This curry sauce really goes well with this sausage. I think we'll do well here for as long as the Fuhrer orders it."

[lunatica]

42. I read that short story.

Just like that Gandhi was snuffed out.

[Johnny Rico]

69. "The Last Article", by Harry Turtledove.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Last_Article

Germany's success in World War II has led to their invasion of the British Raj, and rather than struggling for independence from the Crown, Gandhi and Nehru find themselves in the position of resisting Nazi occupation using the techniques that were successfully employed against the British. Although Nehru has a general concept of the inherent immoral nature of Nazism, Gandhi thinks they still can be persuaded, not heeding the warning from a Jew named Wiesenthal, who was able to flee Poland to India.

The Nazis, however, led by Field Marshal Walther Model, are completely unmoved by Gandhi's strategy. They view themselves as a master race and have no moral qualms about killing those who resist non-violently (or even those who do not resist at all, if they are of a certain race). In the end the movement collapses as it proves unable to deal with the savagery of Nazism.

The story then takes what could be deemed an intensely bleak tone. For instance, Gandhi draws a moral equivalence between the Nazis and British imperialists, something the other elements of the narrative are critical of, are Gandhi's real-world assertions. Model points out that his loyalty is to his own people, which do not include the Indians. That loyalty is rewarded when Gandhi hears a German radio broadcast commend Model's leniency after he perpetrated the Qtub road massacre.

In large part the story concerns the weakness inherent in Gandhi's, and later Martin Luther King, Jr.'s, non-violence movement requirement upon exposing the alleged hypocrisy of the communities that oppressed them. This was a plausible strategy against British imperialism or American institutional racism, as these oppressions were seemingly hypocritical given that the United Kingdom and United States societies espoused freedom and equality for all citizens, and would have been impossible in an antebellum United States. In essence, the fiction posits that violent resistance to things like Nazism, such as the uprising in the Warsaw Ghetto, is more likely to succeed than a Gandhi approach, although the Warsaw uprising, as was pointed out by Model in the story, was likewise a failure.

In a conversation, Field Marshal Model compares the alternate-world Nazi empire with ancient Rome, facing the early Christians, pointing out that their collapse came as a result of their tolerance. But, the history does not characterize Model as a bloodthirsty savage; he is a professional at conquest, and Turtledove provides the SS officer responsible for the Warsaw Ghetto massacre to provide contrast between that officer's mindless savagery and Model's purposeful violence.

[Permanut]

23. I think the best approach

would be to go to work for Brown Brothers Harriman, which was closely involved with Fritz Thyssen, who helped finance Hitler, and to become a director of Union Banking Corporation, which represented Thyssen's US interests.

That worked out really well for Prescott Bush and the BFEE, but helped rather than hurt Hitler. So I guess that rather than working against Hitler, it would be treason. So on second though, my idea is a terrible one.

[EFerrari]

24. Well, we know for sure civil obedience did not work. nt

[mahina]

30. Thank you.

+100

[Kennah]

25. No, they would not have worked

Despite the KKK in the South, there were sane civilized people all across America.

Despite the oppressive British regime, there were sane civilized people all across the British empire.

Sane civilized people are shocked and outraged by brutality.

In Nazi Germany, it seems that civilization vanished for a period of time and Germany became Lord of the Flies.

[Behind the Aegis]

26. Given that Gandhi said the Jews should have committed mass suicide....

...I am guessing the results would have been about the same, at least for us.

[jwirr]

64. Yes, I read somewhere that Ghandi said that no more would have died if we had never gone to war.

I don't think he was thinking genecide. But that is what was happening.

[Selatius]

27. I believe Bashar Al Assad is a great example of being shot for demonstrating peacefully.

You can come out by the thousands and protest a wrong, and you would be justified in protesting, but Assad will simply send tanks and soldiers into your neighborhood and cut you down in a hail of bullets and artillery shells.

Hell, our biggest trade partner today China used the same tactic when it killed thousands of pro-democracy protesters back in 1989.

[coalition_unwilling]

28. Who do you propose would be committing CD against Hitler? The German

people, as Daniel Goldhagen and others have pretty decisively demonstrated, were pretty much on board with Hitler and the Nazi Party's agenda, after 1933.

[mahina]

29. They did work against Hitler, in one case.

Check out A Force More Powerful

[jtuck004]

82. Not exactly accurate. The free school teachers and students, and others,

were known to commit sabotage at night, sometimes resulting in German deaths. That direct conflict, not just the disobedience, had as much to do with slowing Germany down during that time as anything.

[mahina]

95. I guess it depends on your definition of nonviolent resistance.

Point taken though.

[jtuck004]

103. I think sometimes people become enamored of a tactic and forget the goal, which can lead to

implementing the wrong tactic, or doing it poorly. They need to grok where it didn't work, or where it was made better with other tactics, with just as much vigor and uncritical enthusiam. Because to a person with only a hammer everthing looks like a nail, eh

[mahina]

105. word

[mahina]

31. Albert Einstein Institution, Gene Sharp, 198 Methods of Nonviolent Resistance

http://www.aeinstein.org/organizations103a.html

198 Methods of Nonviolent Action

These methods were compiled by Dr. Gene Sharp and first published in his 1973 book, The Politics of Nonviolent Action, Vol. 2: The Methods of Nonviolent Action. (Boston: Porter Sargent Publishers, 1973). The book outlines each method and gives information about its historical use.

You may also download this list of methods.


THE METHODS OF NONVIOLENT PROTEST AND PERSUASION

Formal Statements
1. Public Speeches
2. Letters of opposition or support
3. Declarations by organizations and institutions
4. Signed public statements
5. Declarations of indictment and intention
6. Group or mass petitions

Communications with a Wider Audience
7. Slogans, caricatures, and symbols
8. Banners, posters, and displayed communications
9. Leaflets, pamphlets, and books
10. Newspapers and journals
11. Records, radio, and television
12. Skywriting and earthwriting

Group Representations
13. Deputations
14. Mock awards
15. Group lobbying
16. Picketing
17. Mock elections

Symbolic Public Acts
18. Displays of flags and symbolic colors
19. Wearing of symbols
20. Prayer and worship
21. Delivering symbolic objects
22. Protest disrobings
23. Destruction of own property
24. Symbolic lights
25. Displays of portraits
26. Paint as protest
27. New signs and names
28. Symbolic sounds
29. Symbolic reclamations
30. Rude gestures

Pressures on Individuals
31. "Haunting" officials
32. Taunting officials
33. Fraternization
34. Vigils

Drama and Music
35. Humorous skits and pranks
36. Performances of plays and music
37. Singing

Processions
38. Marches
39. Parades
40. Religious processions
41. Pilgrimages
42. Motorcades

Honoring the Dead
43. Political mourning
44. Mock funerals
45. Demonstrative funerals
46. Homage at burial places

Public Assemblies
47. Assemblies of protest or support
48. Protest meetings
49. Camouflaged meetings of protest
50. Teach-ins

Withdrawal and Renunciation
51. Walk-outs
52. Silence
53. Renouncing honors
54. Turning one's back


THE METHODS OF SOCIAL NONCOOPERATION

Ostracism of Persons
55. Social boycott
56. Selective social boycott
57. Lysistratic nonaction
58. Excommunication
59. Interdict

Noncooperation with Social Events, Customs, and Institutions
60. Suspension of social and sports activities
61. Boycott of social affairs
62. Student strike
63. Social disobedience
64. Withdrawal from social institutions

Withdrawal from the Social System
65. Stay-at-home
66. Total personal noncooperation
67. "Flight" of workers
68. Sanctuary
69. Collective disappearance
70. Protest emigration (hijrat)


THE METHODS OF ECONOMIC NONCOOPERATION: (1) ECONOMIC BOYCOTTS

Actions by Consumers
71. Consumers' boycott
72. Nonconsumption of boycotted goods
73. Policy of austerity
74. Rent withholding
75. Refusal to rent
76. National consumers' boycott
77. International consumers' boycott

Action by Workers and Producers
78. Workmen's boycott
79. Producers' boycott

Action by Middlemen
80. Suppliers' and handlers' boycott

Action by Owners and Management
81. Traders' boycott
82. Refusal to let or sell property
83. Lockout
84. Refusal of industrial assistance
85. Merchants' "general strike"

Action by Holders of Financial Resources
86. Withdrawal of bank deposits
87. Refusal to pay fees, dues, and assessments
88. Refusal to pay debts or interest
89. Severance of funds and credit
90. Revenue refusal
91. Refusal of a government's money

Action by Governments
92. Domestic embargo
93. Blacklisting of traders
94. International sellers' embargo
95. International buyers' embargo
96. International trade embargo


THE METHODS OF ECONOMIC NONCOOPERATION: (2)THE STRIKE

Symbolic Strikes
97. Protest strike
98. Quickie walkout (lightning strike)

Agricultural Strikes
99. Peasant strike
100. Farm Workers' strike

Strikes by Special Groups
101. Refusal of impressed labor
102. Prisoners' strike
103. Craft strike
104. Professional strike

Ordinary Industrial Strikes
105. Establishment strike
106. Industry strike
107. Sympathetic strike

Restricted Strikes
108. Detailed strike
109. Bumper strike
110. Slowdown strike
111. Working-to-rule strike
112. Reporting "sick" (sick-in)
113. Strike by resignation
114. Limited strike
115. Selective strike

Multi-Industry Strikes
116. Generalized strike
117. General strike

Combination of Strikes and Economic Closures
118. Hartal
119. Economic shutdown


THE METHODS OF POLITICAL NONCOOPERATION

Rejection of Authority
120. Withholding or withdrawal of allegiance
121. Refusal of public support
122. Literature and speeches advocating resistance

Citizens' Noncooperation with Government
123. Boycott of legislative bodies
124. Boycott of elections
125. Boycott of government employment and positions
126. Boycott of government depts., agencies, and other bodies
127. Withdrawal from government educational institutions
128. Boycott of government-supported organizations
129. Refusal of assistance to enforcement agents
130. Removal of own signs and placemarks
131. Refusal to accept appointed officials
132. Refusal to dissolve existing institutions

Citizens' Alternatives to Obedience
133. Reluctant and slow compliance
134. Nonobedience in absence of direct supervision
135. Popular nonobedience
136. Disguised disobedience
137. Refusal of an assemblage or meeting to disperse
138. Sitdown
139. Noncooperation with conscription and deportation
140. Hiding, escape, and false identities
141. Civil disobedience of "illegitimate" laws

Action by Government Personnel
142. Selective refusal of assistance by government aides
143. Blocking of lines of command and information
144. Stalling and obstruction
145. General administrative noncooperation
146. Judicial noncooperation
147. Deliberate inefficiency and selective noncooperation by enforcement agents
148. Mutiny

Domestic Governmental Action
149. Quasi-legal evasions and delays
150. Noncooperation by constituent governmental units

International Governmental Action
151. Changes in diplomatic and other representations
152. Delay and cancellation of diplomatic events
153. Withholding of diplomatic recognition
154. Severance of diplomatic relations
155. Withdrawal from international organizations
156. Refusal of membership in international bodies
157. Expulsion from international organizations


THE METHODS OF NONVIOLENT INTERVENTION

Psychological Intervention
158. Self-exposure to the elements
159. The fast
a) Fast of moral pressure
b) Hunger strike
c) Satyagrahic fast
160. Reverse trial
161. Nonviolent harassment

Physical Intervention
162. Sit-in
163. Stand-in
164. Ride-in
165. Wade-in
166. Mill-in
167. Pray-in
168. Nonviolent raids
169. Nonviolent air raids
170. Nonviolent invasion
171. Nonviolent interjection
172. Nonviolent obstruction
173. Nonviolent occupation

Social Intervention
174. Establishing new social patterns
175. Overloading of facilities
176. Stall-in
177. Speak-in
178. Guerrilla theater
179. Alternative social institutions
180. Alternative communication system

Economic Intervention
181. Reverse strike
182. Stay-in strike
183. Nonviolent land seizure
184. Defiance of blockades
185. Politically motivated counterfeiting
186. Preclusive purchasing
187. Seizure of assets
188. Dumping
189. Selective patronage
190. Alternative markets
191. Alternative transportation systems
192. Alternative economic institutions

Political Intervention
193. Overloading of administrative systems
194. Disclosing identities of secret agents
195. Seeking imprisonment
196. Civil disobedience of "neutral" laws
197. Work-on without collaboration
198. Dual sovereignty and parallel government

Source: Gene Sharp, The Politics of Nonviolent Action, Vol. 2: The Methods of Nonviolent Action (Boston: Porter Sargent Publishers, 1973).

Download PDF

[mahina]

32. It's really worth watching. DVD's are in many libraries, though not available on Netflix.

Nonviolent resistance worked in India, Poland, Denmark, South Africa, the United States, Chile against Pinochet, among others.

&feature=results_main&playnext=1&list=PL59BA754B35A56939

[UnrepentantLiberal]

34. Why are you asking a stupid question you already know the answer to?

Every situation is different.

[cali]

35. Three words: The White Rose

Students tortured and put to death for passing out anti-war leaflets.

The White Rose (German: die Weiße Rose) was a non-violent, intellectual resistance group in Nazi Germany, consisting of students from the University of Munich and their philosophy professor. The group became known for an anonymous leaflet and graffiti campaign, lasting from June 1942 until February 1943, that called for active opposition to dictator Adolf Hitler's regime.

The six most recognized members of the group were arrested by the Gestapo and beheaded in 1943. The text of their sixth leaflet was smuggled by Helmuth James Graf von Moltke out of Germany through Scandinavia to the United Kingdom, and in July 1943 copies of it were dropped over Germany by Allied planes, retitled "The Manifesto of the Students of Munich."[1]

Another member, Hans Conrad Leipelt, who helped distribute Leaflet 6 in Hamburg, was executed on January 29, 1945 for his participation.

Today, the members of the White Rose are honoured in Germany amongst its greatest heroes, since they opposed the Third Reich in the face of death.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Rose

[redgreenandblue]

36. On a side note: I think MLK and Ghandi succeeded *because* of a credible threat of violence.

To successfully be non-violent your adversary has to fear the failure of non-violence. MLK and Ghandi both were playing "good cop, bad cop". Ghandi's hunger strikes were effective because the British knew that all hell would break loose if he died. Similarly, MLK projected to white America that there was a choice between him "the nice guy" and the "other option" which would be considerably less nice.

[jwirr]

67. A leader must fear what the world thinks or that his rep will be distroyed before it can work.

Hitler did not care what the world thought - his arogance make him invincible in his own mind.

[redgreenandblue]

37. Is this a thinly veiled attempt to drum up support for another "peacekeeping invasion"?

Nothing since Hitler has compared to Hitler, so the question is irrelevant. No, Assad is not Hitler, and neither were the Vietcong or Saddam.

Fail.

[stevenleser]

71. While true in one sense, the problem with your argument is that Hitler wasnt even Hitler at first.

Right after the invasion of Poland, if the allies had invaded Germany, the Germans would not have been able to hold them off. It took seven months after the invasion of Poland for Germany to assemble the necessary forces on the Belgian frontier to be able to invade the low countries and then France. Had France invaded right away after September 1, 1939 over its border with Germany, the French and the allies would have been able to overrun Germany and the third Reich would have ended before it began.

Of course, if you compare Assad or any other folks today to Hitler in 1942 after he had overrun most of continental Europe, the comparison seems absurd, but that is not the comparison.

The trick is to know in each situation what you are dealing with, but it's really not that hard. Saddam in 2003 was completely contained and we had no fly zones over 2/3rds of the country where the world's most powerful Air Force (ours) prevented Saddam from being a threat to anything. Any comparison in 2003 between Saddam and Hitler was idiotic on its face.

[redgreenandblue]

99. The closest thing to Hitler's Poland invasion during the last decades was the invasion of Iraq.

In today's world people who claim wanting to "prevent another Hitler" are a bigger threat to world peace than actual "Hitlers".

[stevenleser]

102. Since you didn't address any of my points, I won't address yours. nt

[Jim__]

38. Do you believe that intelligent negotiations at Versailles at the end of WWI ...

... would have prevented Hitler from ever coming to power? I do.

History is chock-full of violence. We may not be able to completely eliminate violence. We may be able to tone it down. Right now, I think we need to work to eliminate nuclear weapons. We can't allow a nuclear war.

[jwirr]

68. I am with you on this one. The negotiations left Germany with nothing to fall back on. They were

ripe for picking by someone like Hitler.

[Cirque du So-What]

39. No

but by the same token, open revolt wouldn't have worked either. Resistance to Nazi rule/occupation - out of necessity - went 'underground.' Some regimes are so brutally repressive that civil disobedience is an exercise in futility. In fact, I wonder about how 'revolution,' even if it were to come peacefully at first, would be addressed by TPTB is the US. I think the heavy-handedness with which the 'occupy' movement has been met in many instances is a fair indicator that the response will be swift and violent.

[quaker bill]

40. It is a question of timing

A great many peaceful things might have kept Hitler marginalized in the political lunatic fringe, if they were in play early enough. By the time he was running the country, it was a decade too late.

[lunatica]

41. Their method of dealing with dissent was to kill everyone, not just one or two

They had dedicated squads of soldiers who were specifically sent into villages to round up all the people and, for example, take all the men into the woods and killing them first then do the same to the rest of the village. They did this hundreds and thousands of times. That was all the soldiers did.

These mass killings turned out to be very efficient in squashing any dissent.

[CBGLuthier]

43. Nope. Have to be a semi decent society for those tactics to work.

I did read a short story once where the nazis had been aggressive in India and taken control. I think they just hauled Gandhi out and shot him.

And I would imagine if some disgusting entity such as the C.S.A. still existed they would have done the same with Dr. King.

Looking above I see several read that story. Amazing the power of a good short story.

[closeupready]

44. Yes, I do. If nobody had cooperated with Hitler

and the Nazi regime, they wouldn't have been able to do much of what they did, including mass murder. Yes, many would likely have died anyway, but not as many, IMHO.

[cali]

45. except many people in Germany and outside of it, DID cooperate with Hitler

given that fact- and it's reality- do you still think that non-violent resistance like the White Rose could have succeeded?

Hint: It did not.

[closeupready]

47. Many Germans who cooperated did not know

of the existence of crematoriums. Some did, of course, but most likely did not.

See my post below, also.

[cali]

49. uh, so what? they all knew he was a war mongerer. they all fucking knew about the

Nuremberg laws. They all fucking knew about Krystallnacht. It's just pathetic to say that they were in the dark. they weren't.

and you still did not answer my very direct question.

[closeupready]

52. If you don't tone down your disrespect, I'm going to put you on ignore.

And then that will be the end of this discussion between you and me.

I'll come back to this thread in a few, thanks.

[snooper2]

63. LOL

[coalition_unwilling]

93. Have you read Daniel Goldhagen's "Hitler's Willing Executioners"? If not,

you should, as Goldhagen pretty decisively dismantles the position that Germans did not know.

[closeupready]

46. And actually, I've been to Auschwitz, and one of the

things they tell you there at the museum is that Nazi disinformation played a key role in helping to get Jewish Germans and other targeted groups from wherever they lived to the death camps via train.

That is, they were told that they would be going to a place set aside for just for them, and they would be treated well, and allowed to live freely. This was a lie, of course, but the point was the Nazis understood that they needed to have cooperation not only from their victims, but from ordinary Germans who - had they known Jews were being sent to crematoriums rather than plain detention camps - otherwise would not have cooperated.

[cali]

50. oh please. most European Jews, by the time the death camps were in full operation

knew damn well they weren't going to some place where they'd be treated well. there is a shitload of material documenting that.

And there is NO evidence that ordinary Germans wouldn't have cooperated. None. Zero.

[closeupready]

51. Then you should write the Auschwitz museum's caretakers,

and inform them of their error.

[cali]

54. with all due respect, what one might be told by a guide at Auschwitz

is not authoritative. There is a mass of evidence contradicting what you were told.

[closeupready]

60. I'll concede that there are likely different views.

They may have even had it wrong, and since this was 20 years ago, maybe they've changed their program.

I will note that when I did the tour, there was a big Israeli youth group who also did the tour. So I'm doubtful that any erroneous info with regard to the death camps would have remained part of the tour for long.

I'd also note that you are as authoritative as I am here. And that an Auschwitz tour guide is likely more authoritative than either you or I.

And anyway, it doesn't matter. I'm not trying to persuade anyone away from what they believe.

The opening post merely asks for our views, and these are mine.

Cheers, Cali.

[4th law of robotics]

78. Cooperation might make things easier, but lack of cooperation wouldn't necessarily stop the crime

If a kidnapper can trick you in to entering his van voluntarily that makes his life easier. That doesn't mean that you are incapable of being kidnapped if you refuse to voluntarily enter said van.

[closeupready]

79. True, but think about the numbers involved in the Holocaust.

If six million people (or even a fraction of that number) refused to cooperate, you'd have to summarily execute - leading to breakdown of social order, public health hazards, diversion of public resources, etc.

If you had known you were boarding a train designed to take you to a work camp where you would almost certainly either be worked to death or murdered, would you go willingly? Would you let your children and family? Of course not. That's why they had to be told, at least initially, that they were going to somewhere better.

[YellowRubberDuckie]

48. Negative to google degree.

Hitler would have just had them shot in the head.

[cali]

56. Or guillotined or hung with piano wire.

a shot in the head was kind compared to what Hitler did to those who plotted against him- or even just passed out anti-war leaflets.

[GeorgeGist]

53. Ghandi might agree:

"It is better to be violent, if there is violence in our hearts, than to put on the cloak of nonviolence to cover impotence."

[uponit7771]

55. Maybe, the world didn't know during the Olympic games that Germany was toxic. Peaceful ...

...civil disobedience would've drawn some light to them

[cali]

57. the Nuremberg laws were passed in 1935.

They were widely known by the 1936 Olympics.

[The Magistrate]

58. Hitler Was Regarded As The Champion Of Anti-Communism, Sir

Protesters would simply have been imprisoned torturously and killed, with Western economic, political, and opinion leaders largely applauding such treatment of Communists, as the protesters would surely have been styled....

[Recursion]

59. Who are you suggesting would have committed civil disobedience?

I think parts of what they did were particular to overcoming a racist system that still economically needed the oppressed -- I'm not sure that economic need existed for the Nazis.

[boxman15]

61. Obviously, we'll never know, but

you're probably right. Regimes like Hitler's or Stalin's needed to be met with violence to stop them.

That being said, I'm sure MLK supported the military action in Europe. He wasn't against violence. He was just against unnecessary use of it.

[sudopod]

62. It depends on timing.

Last edited Mon Apr 23, 2012, 12:00 PM - Edit history (1)

In the 40s? No, it was too late.

In the late twenties and even the early 30s? Yes, I think it could have turned public opinion against the fascists.

Non-violent resistance is sort of like medicine. It can heal an ailing patient, but it cannot resurrect the dead.

[cali]

66. excellent observation.

though I think the window was very small.

[ZombieHorde]

73. I wonder if you are right about the 20s.

I like to think that you are right.

[Yo_Mama]

65. I'm afraid you're right n/t

[4th law of robotics]

70. Civil disobedience requires a free press and something like an adherence to the law

I don't think Hitler was big on either of those things.

/also an unwillingness to kill too many people. The british occupation of India and Jim Crow treatment of blacks was actually pretty mild compared to the SS and the death camps.

[stevenleser]

72. Like many others, I think it depends on a regimes fear of world opinion and their appetite for death

I think the Third Reich would have represented the perfect nullifying storm where satyagraha is concerned. There were many global news reports about Krystalnacht, the Nuremberg laws, the treatment of Jewish athletes at the Berlin Olympics, etc. Hitler didnt really care what the rest of the world thought.

With 6 million Jews and millions of LGBT, Roma, Slavs and others killed in the concentration camps, we can also see that the Third Reich had a massive appetite for death.

The Germans would have simply killed all non-violent protesters. Had such a movement started, a meeting would have been held and the most efficient method of killing and disposing of protesters would have been developed and implemented. That is how the concentration camps were developed and that is how the Third Reich worked.

[EFerrari]

74. The point of civil disobedience is not that you use it instead of an army

but that it's what the people have when there is no army at their disposal, isn't it?

Maybe it depends what you mean by "work". Oskar Schindler saved a lot of people. Dietrich Bonhoeffer's departure from his pacifist principles only got people killed, himself included.

I suppose it could be argued that the absence of civil disobedience allowed Hitler to turn Europe into a personal death cult. By the time the Allies got there, it was too late for millions of people so you could say that violence failed to work against Hitler's death factories, too.

WW2 is not an argument against civil disobedience but rather, why civil disobedience must be taught and practiced by people who would rather not be forced to hope that an army will arrive in time to save them.

[closeupready]

75. Your last sentence is exactly right.

I think the whole practice of "question everything" is based, in part, on the history in Europe where ordinary people just cooperated with authorities on demand, helping usher in events that led to the manmade deaths of tens of millions of people, destruction of civilization and misery, famine and disease.

I think everyone in a healthy democracy needs to examine under what circumstances they would refuse to cooperate with authorities. It may be the case that some people would refuse in only extremely limited circumstances; some people would never refuse to cooperate; some would refuse liberally. I think it's best to make such decisions in advance, or at least to practice using free will and one's ability to say 'no'.

[struggle4progress]

76. What civil disobedience and when?

The Nazis spent several years consolidating power after the 30 January 1933 takeover. In particular, there were elections in early March 1933, and a growing ban on other political parties from January to July 1933. From July 1933 through the end of 1934, the stiff-arm salute became increasingly mandatory: all public employees were required to use the stiff-arm as a greeting from mid-summer 1933, and by the end of 1934 Germans who refused to use the stiff-arm salute were sent to concentration camps

So the Nazis didn't have an immediate stranglehold on the country, and there might still have been some opportunity to sway opinion by Gandhian tactics in the early days

[KurtNYC]

77. If I can flip that over, Would 'Dancing with the Stars' have worked against Ghandi?

We have been groomed to become a nation of spectators who watch phony businessmen pick their next apprentice and sit in judgment of people's dancing and singing skills.

When we see injustice we get out a cell phone and try to get a clear shot of whatever is happening so that it can go viral on YouTube later.

Sometimes I think the government keeps pot illegal because they don't need it, the media is so much more effective at keeping the populace stoned.

[HiPointDem]

80. nope. hitler & gandhi's methods only work when there's a gov't that feels it needs to respond

to public opinion to some degree & is unable to hide what's happening or put it down to 'terrorists,' 'outside agitators' and the like.

the other thing to consider is that sometimes popular movements are used by the ptb to bring about changes that the gov't wants but also wants to look like it's being 'pushed' into enacting.

i am not sanguine about the power of mass movements v. established power. when they succeed there's often a hidden hand.

[Freddie Stubbs]

83. Nonviolent resistance only works when

there is a free press and a population that gives a crap.

[LAGC]

106. I don't know, it seemed to work well enough in the final days of the old Soviet Union.

It certainly helps when the regime in power refuses to open fire on the protesters.

Got to give the Commies some credit for that.

[dembotoz]

84. perhaps early yes

by the time the war stated it was too late

when open protest became teason

[tabasco]

86. No, only military disobedience.

The German army pretty much followed Hitler's orders right to the end.

Except for Von Paulus.

[spanone]

88. this comes to mind....

this picture moved the world.

[Egalitarian Thug]

90. It didn't.

The fact that so few are even aware that it was tried clearly demonstrates in ineffectiveness.

[datasuspect]

92. Nope

Not when a regime proposes liquidation/ethnic cleansing as a "final solution" to whatever they deem their biggest problem.

[Old Troop]

94. There's an alternate history story that follows this

line of thinking regarding Ghandi in a world where the nazis have conquered India from the Brits. It doesn't end well.

[Johnny Rico]

104. "The Last Article", by Harry Turtledove.

[arely staircase]

97. no

even the Dalai Lama recognizes the right to self defense.

[undergroundpanther]

98. Non-violence/civil disobedience

would not work to stop Hitler.Because a psychopath feels no sense of empathy,shame or remorse.If the group you are fighting is run by psychopaths the only language they understand is domination and submission.

You cannot negotiate with psychopaths,if you do your principles and values will become eroded.

Both non-violence/civil disobedience & violence are needed.

Martin Luther King & the Black Panthers were both needed to effect lasting changes.

[lonestarnot]

100. What he said.

[bermudat]

101. Nope

Non violence would not work against heartless demons.

[mmonk]

107. Hard to tell. Most of the population were "good Germans" when the opportunity first appeared.