"Violence is never a solution?"

[MrsT]

I have heard phrases like "war is never the answer" or "violence is never the solution" amongst friends, co-workers and others, and I agree for the most part. However, the way we handled Germany in WWII seems like a time when war and violence was the answer. Certainly Allied forces killed many civilians, and many innocent lives, women and children, destroyed. But I can't see how diplomacy would have ever worked.

Do you think violence and war against Germany was a proper solution? Is the phrase "violence is NEVER a solution" really accurate? I ask because I wonder what DU comments would have been like in 1940s. I am not a history buff, so please feel free to enlighten me.

And for whatever it is worth, I would only like to hear comments about WWII, there are enough threads about Iraq and Israel.

[Demeter]

1. Violence Can Be a Solution

But only when it is appropriate, timely, limited, and the last resort.

None of this applies in BushWorld (or the Middle East, or between any two or more religions).

[hlthe2b]

4. Yes.. I doubt anyone here would question

the right to self-defense. But, in this case one may have to shoot/kill the intruder to your house who holds a gun to your daughter's head. It doesn't give you license, after-the-fact to go shoot up the perpetrator's home and kill his family and friends. And if he and a gang of 20 or 30 just like him happen to live in a housing project with a 1000 other innocent people, I hardly think that gives one the right to launch a missile strike into the housing project-- or the police precinct that adjoins (even if you think the police have not done enough to reign in the gang).

I'm really aghast at what people are willing to justify lately...

[bryant69]

2. I here Violence is Never a Solution from Conservatoids more than us

It's one of the labels they use to paint us with when they want to say we can't be depended on to defend the country.

At any rate in regards to WWII, the continual aggression by both Hitler and Japan couldn't have been stopped without bloodshed - at least not quickly - I suppose it's possible they might have been stopped after Hitlers death - and have chosen to withdraw voluntarily; but that doesn't seem likely.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[sgxnk]

3. sometimes

sometimes violence IS a solution

WWII being the most obvious (but not exclusive) example

i see there are a lot of pacifists here.

i respect that. heck, i went to a quaker school, and quakers have always been pacifists

but personally, i think pacifism is absurd

sometimes war is necessary

when arguing against the current war du jour (iraq, israel/lebanon, whatever) many people here constantly say war is always wrong, etc.

i totally 100% disagree

but that's fine.

[bronxiteforever]

5. Without World War One there is no Hitler or Stalin-war is a cycle

Think about how many of the mass killers from this century were born from war-is there a Pol Pot without the vietnam war?You can't just pick up Hitler and say here we must firebomb Dresden-Hitler was a produced by war (the stupidity and violence from World war One), history is a web and the threads run through us all-the point is make a list of wars and tell me which ones were "good" and which ones were bad-the list runs against war everytime
also, injustice from past violence generally creates the next monster-then ask yourself which family would you kill? Look at them huddled in a cellar or running in a rice paddy or burning from fire and say that is right and good-violence to stop the concentration camps -of course-but violence got us there in the first place-as Franklin said "there never was a bad peace or a good war"

[MrsT]

6. So what should we have done with Germany?

[bronxiteforever]

8. I said violence to stop the concentration camp was ok but you

ducked my question which family do you think it was right to kill?

[MrsT]

10. I didn't duck your question you just write in a way that I

find hard to understand because you don't seem to use punctuation much like the way I am typing right now do you see what I am saying?

It wasn't "right" to kill any family, but it was necessary to stop Hitler. That would have been IMPOSSIBLE to do without civilian casualties, would you agree?

[bronxiteforever]

13. You original question allows that we can only travel back

in time for Hitler's Germany. Your point did not look at how WW2 began which has its roots in other wars. Since your question implies that we can fly back to a point in time(something we cannot do) I chose to use your imaginary "way back" machine for my purpose of showing you that Hitler only existed due to another bad war. No World War One, no Hitler,etc.,

Civil War violence-absolutely justified as well as knocking off Hitler.
My point was that violence as a general rule promotes injustice on the human level. War also promotes the rule of unintended consequences. Like the present disaster in Iraq created by the USA.

The other point is violence is personal. It is easy to type on a screen thoughts about killing a bad guy but to see its impact in person is different. There is very little impersonal about slaughter.

I appreciate the History question but the present is something we change. My thoughts about the present war Iraq is best contained by Andrew Greeley's latest (who grieves for dead Iraqis) which is posted in the editorial section. Let me know how you feel about that article!

[smacky44]

7. Violence wasn't answer but the Marshall Plan was. It's all about

how you demonize the enemy. We didn't demonize the entire German population (although some felt they were all guilty). We demonized the Nazis and the Fascists. And we certainly didn't demonize their religion there or in Japan.

[Tesha]

9. Bingo! (NT)

[MrsT]

12. The Marshall Plan could only come after military defeat

which would come with civilian casualties, correct?

[sweetheart]

11. Would you be enslaved to go die?

Violence is not a personal solution. Humour is much more artful and effective.

Given that the israel/US/britain axis has just invaded a few countries with
their armies, we better hope the world believes that violence was not justified against germany.

As if it is called for, then the march on washington will cost humanity a hundred million,
but liberate the other 6 billions who are ruled by the ungoverned corporatocracy. Then, ok,
i agree with you, violence is necessary, and the people should get out their 2nd amendment
packages and deliver on a citizen's arrest of a criminal government.

Blitzkrieg has improved given advances in modern air gunnery, the need for ground invasions
is really not necessary to defeat an opponent nation strategically. If all the interstate
bridges were bombed, and all the ports mined, strategic defeat would be achieved.

But many persons say that Germany was defeated by not having oil, and having failed in its
campaign to capture the caspain. But the US is much more successful in this oil grab, and its
military is dominant, yet weak to what ultimately brought down the soviet union, economic ossification
and inability of the economic institutions to adapt. Then a dollar collapse would bring about
the eventual retirement of the roman garrisons, and the world can sleep easy with another evil
empire gone down.