Objectors to nonviolence often make the claim that World War II was the ultimate example of a justified war. How could it be wrong to fight a war against Hitler, a war to save Jewish lives? And how could nonviolence have been effective against such a tyrannical power?
It's a sad fact that the Allies did little to thwart the worst of Hitler's atrocities. Times when death camps, which were bringing in and vetting more people every day, or transportation routes into death camps could have been targeted with no tactical risk to the Allied forces involved. But they were routinely denied; often because the military was careful to avoid the appearance of fighting "for the Jews," which would have
lost popular support for the war. In fact, in many ways, the Holocaust was started and perpetuated by the Allied emergence into the war.
Before the war, German officials tried to concoct several schemes to rid themselves of the "Jewish problem," including an attempt to deport the whole Jewish population to Madagascar, which could have worked except that it required negotiations with France, which couldn't happen during wartime. The point is that it was seen as a long-term problem, not something that had to be resolved instantly. So rights were taken from Jews, Communists, political dissidents, and many were moved to ghettos, gulags and work camps, but it was only with the emergence of the Allied forces, in January of 1942, that the "final solution" was deemed necessary.
"In the postwar world," historian Mark Kurlansky writes, "it became fashionable to view the Allied military effort as an attempt to stop the Holocaust. But in reality, the Allies went to war over geopolitical concerns. If they had wanted to save the Jews, the best chance would have been not going to war."
But to the actual question, should Hitler have been resisted nonviolently? Absolutely. People like to say that Gandhi and King had it easy, because they were dealing with 'civilized tyrants,' and that their tactics would never have worked against Hitler. But that's simply not born out historically. Historically, the nations and people who resisted Hitler through nonviolence (which we
never hear about) were the only truly successful ones - that is to say, more Jewish lives were saved through nonviolence than violence. Denmark, for instance, was declared as neutral but Germany invaded them anyway. Regarding armed resistance as suicidal, they submitted passively, and began regarding it as a mark of national honor to work slowly, to delay all German transportation, to sabotage or destroy German equipment, and to protect anyone Germany pursued. University students openly protested the German occupation, while underground groups sabotaged railroad and infrastructure. Workers went on strike rather than produce useful material for the Nazis. The Danish government refused to enforce the anti-Semitic policies Germany laid down for them. So when Germany announced the deportation of all Danish Jews, the Danes hid virtually the entire population and 1,500 more who were refugees from surrounding nations. Not a single Danish Jew died in the Holocaust.
Similar stories can be told about unarmed subterfuge in Bulgaria, Hungary (which secreted over 100,000 Jews to Sweden, issuing them false passports), towns in southeast France, and in Switzerland.
Ultimately, there is no way that Nazi Germany could have held its grip on Europe, especially if the Allies had sent troops trained in similar methods of nonviolent resistance, while the German motivation for destroying the Jews would have been nonexistent. The high generals who served under Hitler admitted, during the Nuremberg trials and in their own extant writings, that they were confounded by nonviolent resistance. They knew how to crush enemy armies, but the subterfuge of nonviolence couldn't be fought in any efficient way. They encouraged spies to work their way into labor unions in hopes of turning them violent, so they could deal with them.
The problem with this is that it asks great bravery of a populace. It is a relatively easy thing to hand someone a gun and tell them to shoot anyone who crosses that hill. It is much more difficult to tell a person to stand at the bottom of that hill, to meet the one who crosses it, and to tell them that they cannot have their way. But if everyone were to do that, the dictator would have no power. "What could he do to you if you yourself did not connive with the thief who plunders you?" They could kill you, certainly, but that's always a possibility in war.
Opponents of pacifism like to claim that pacifism has been tried and found to be ineffective. This is doubly wrong. Pacifism has never truly been tried - not the way violence has been, with extensive funding, education, training, commitment, resources, infrastructure and the willingness to sacrifice lives if necessary. And when it has been tried, by groups unable to exercise violence, or out of desperation, it has proved to be shockingly effective.
Am I claiming that WWII could have been "fought" without ever resorting to military combat or outright declaration of war? Certainly not. But in light of these considerations, the claim that WWII presents a situation in which no moral person could remain a pacifist falls apart. Many of us believe we are called to live nonviolently, whether or not it is effective. Fortunately, effectiveness is also an option.
-NDSR
---
See also:
The Integrity of German Friends During the Twelve Years of Nazi RuleThe Practicality of Nonviolence
Comments (102)
What a really interesting blog. I confess that, when I read the title, I thought "uh oh" and thought I'd disagree with the post. But I found it interesting and well-reasoned, and really enjoyed it.
I've read a fair amount about the conduct of those in Denmark, which fascinates me. What an amazing thing, especially given what we know of what was happening in other countries. The problem, I think, isn't just that this resistance requires courage, but that it also requires will. In countries like Poland, anti-Semitism was rampant, and many Jewish people were betrayed as a result, and many others were killed in Poland even after the Germans were defeated. Complicity by a population that engaged in its own bigotry was a factor in why the devastation in Poland and some other countries was so severe. That is especially disturbing, given the viciousness of the Nazis towards the Polish population as a whole.
Even in countries in which there was not an overarching resistance, it's amazing to see what the non-violent resistance of individuals can do. Raoul Wallenberg is a hero of mine, and he saved so many people through courage and creativity. It's heartbreaking to think of how many more people could have been saved if populations had stepped up as a whole and refused to give in to it. It's easy, of course, for me to say that, when I don't face death as a result of such an action, and so many people did.
But there are lessons in these stories, and I wish they could be incorporated into modern scenarios better. Thanks for another thought-provoking post!
Excellent post. Inspiring "great bravery" in a population is the hurdle we will most often be unable to surmount.
Awesome post! I always hate that argument... But I've never found a way to get out of it, other than saying that just because I don't agree with it, doesn't mean that God can't take something as bad as war and use it to his benefit, but saying that always makes me feel a little dirty inside... Thanks though!
My husband (xanga.com/otrojake) was having a similar conversation with a friend of his this weekend. When he said he is non-violent and doesn't believe in or support war, she immediately mentioned Hitler. That's the response that he and I always seem to get from our friends who don't understand our belief that Christ calls us to non-violence. I shall direct him to this post
He will certainly like to read it.
If only more of those Danes and Hungarians lived in Germany in 1942 eh.
Awesome post, as usual. :)
I think most people are more willing to die if they have a chance of killing their adversary. For a pacifist, killing another is completely off limits.
Wow! There's a lot of history in this post that I did not know about.
Great post!
Where did you find most of that information? Sure isn't the usual history books.
@HumbleWalk - Mark Kurlansky wrote a book called Nonviolence - The History of a Dangerous Idea, which is a 200-page overview of the history of pacifist movements worldwide. Walter Wink has a three-part series on Christian opposition to injustice called Naming the Powers, Unmasking the Powers and Engaging the Powers. The last one has the most specific information. Also, Howard Zinn is a revisionist historian who wrote A People's History of the United States, which discusses a lot of the U.S. motivation and action in the first and second World War. Zinn worked with MLK and the student unions during Montgomery Boycott, and focuses a lot of attention on nonviolent social protest.
Zinn differed with King, though, in that King believed that when you break a law to prove a point, you need to be willing to suffer the punishment for that infraction. Zinn argues that to do so is to allow a further injustice to be done, and that it's morally acceptable to attempt to break unjust laws and "get away with it." Which is an interesting discussion for another time, perhaps.
@SirNickDon - Cool! Your answer is as interesting as your post. Rock on!
Well, how could nonviolence stop Hitler? You were giving examples which are not truly nonviolent in nature... If one gets raped, don't tell me that she must stop struggling and start to enjoy the process. How disgusting... If she struggled even though she might get killed or be subdued, there still is a chance for her to get away. Everything has more than 1 side. Nonviolence is good, but sometimes you lose more lives being submissive than standing up and fight with your strength. Nonviolence does not work for all situations, violence also does not work for all situations. We need combination not elimination of one side.
I think it's a bit naive for anyone to say that the Allies going to war was the cause of the holocaust. I am afraid Europe had a long history of violence against Jews. Every European country, including Russia, has a bloody history of oppressing the Jews. Go back to the Crusades, the Inquisitions, the Pogroms in Russia. Germany also had a racist history long before Hitler came to power. That the Allies entering the war hastened the acceptance of the "Final Solution" is very likely. However hastening doesn't mean that the holocaust would never have happened anyway. There was already ample evidence the Nazis had no compunction about killing anyone/group that they saw as being in their way.
Deportation was a much more efficient and speedy way of getting Jews out of Germany. But once the war started deportation anywhere would have been impossible, as you point out. So, it is most likely that the "Final Solution" would have finally been reached in any case.
I too appreciate and believe in the non-violent measures of MLK and Gandhi. But there is something you simply do not address here. What MLK and Gandhi were standing up for was the just treatment of their own oppressed peoples. God Himself stands up for the oppressed, and against injustice. To say that non-violence would have worked with Hitler is to misunderstand Hitler and people like him. Hitler is the cause of his own downfall. Hitler earned for himself, and his cohorts what was the wage for their evil behavior. The Nazis were not an oppressed people, but were the oppressors and murders.
Black people in this country did not and do not deserve oppression and injustice. The people of India did not deserve the oppression and injustice they received a the hands of the British. Your are trying to make apples and oranges the same thing. There is no comparison between what MLK and Gandhi were up against, and what the Allies were up against in WWII.
@The_Strugglers_Place - Yes, and Hitler started hating Jews before the Allies butted in...
So - the Jews who went to the camps without a fight did the right thing, and those who tried to save them were wrong? Interesting perspective. I respect the idea of pacifism to a point, but when one begins to take leave of common sense, I begin to disagree. You yourself have pointed out that it requires great bravery on the part of the populace to effectively implement true pacifist resistance. How much greater a sacrifice should have been made by the Jewish people and the world? How many more should have died to obtain your ideal resistance to the nazis? Furthermore, you claim that pacifism has never been truly tried - yet go on to say that WW2 proves that it is effective. You seem to be trying to have your cake and eat it, too, with that argument. Which is it - untried, or proved effective? Because it can't be both.
and remember what happened in... the only reason the US entered WW2 was because of the bombing of Pearl Harbor... the US wanted to stay out of the war entirely... America was provoked and in came D-Day and the rest is history... so to speak...
@nowayout001 - Yes that is true, however, hatred does not make all people murderers. There are many people who hate, but never act upon that hatred. SirNickDon does have a point when he says the Allies entering the war hastened the acceptance of the "Final Solution". Still the hatred of the Nazis is the only true cause for the holocaust.
As long as the Nazis found deportation useful that was their method, but when it became more of a bother then the killing would, and as history shows, did begin. The argument that non-violent measures would have worked against Hitler are very naive, the cost bitter, and ultimately pointless. The history of dictators whether Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, or Saddam Hussein, shows that such men care nothing for peace, and hate those who do.
@The_Strugglers_Place - I know, but since Hitler was in power, he could easily act upon his hatred towards anyone...
@radicalramblings - That's right.
@nowayout001 - Well, yes, of course, you are right. And Hitler had already killed many in his own party, to solidify his power. Hitler showed restraint only when it served his purposes.
@The_Strugglers_Place - Yeah~ But maybe you're right about the hastening bit...
This is a very interesting blog.
@The_Strugglers_Place - @nowayout001 - I definitely don't mean to claim that the death camps would never have been used if the Allies hadn't butted in. We in America only need to look at our own history to see how easily relocation of ethnic groups can turn to near-genocide. I am only trying, with that point, to challenge the simplistic history-book account that says America fought the war to save Jewish lives. In truth, our goals were not nearly so altruistic.
@nowayout001 - You're absolutely right that nonviolent resistance is not 100% effective in opposing injustice. But let's be fair. Violent resistance is not 100% effective in opposing injustice. Violence often fails to achieve its aims (in wars, at least 50% of the time), and often leaves new injustices in its wake.
Ultimately, though, Christians should be committed to nonviolence not because it might be more or equally effective with violence, but because that's the kind of community Christ has called the church to be.
@radicalramblings - There are many situations where violence and nonviolence are equally ineffective. Those deported to labor and death camps could attempt to resist violently. Some did, and were killed. Some did, and were subdued and taken anyway. Others chose to go passively, in hopes that things weren't as bad as they seemed, in hopes they could take care of a child for a few more months, in hopes the war would end soon enough to save them. I don't think it's something we can judge them for now, whether they chose to fight or not. What is the ethically correct way of being gassed?
Also, as to pacifism being untried and effective, "Pacifism has never truly been tried - not the way violence has been, with extensive funding, education, training, commitment, resources, infrastructure and the willingness to sacrifice lives if necessary. And when it has been tried, by groups unable to exercise violence, or out of desperation, it has proved to be shockingly effective." It hasn't been intentionally tried the way war has, but it has been resorted to in times of desperation or by charismatic leaders with no true authority. In the latter case, it has often shown impressive results.
@nowayout001 - Oh, I'm afraid that's pretty much a matter of fact. There is little doubt actually. Still, the Nazis would have killed that many from some "enemy" group anyway. The Nazis killed Communists, Catholics, Slavs, Poles, homosexuals, Gypsies, not to mention citizens in occupied countries, and Allied soldiers. There would always have been a "Final Solution" for some group or other.
@SirNickDon - Well, the Bible didn't actually teach us to go for nonviolent ways all the time. In fact, there are many God-instructed wars in the Bible, especially the Old Testament. In the New Testament, Jesus Christ Himself became angry and cleared the temple by force. I didn't say that violent ways are 100% effective. I am just saying that nonviolent ways are not as effective as you think it is. I don't care whether Americans fought for an altruistic cause or not, because the result is: more Jewish lives could have lost if they didn't butt in...
@SirNickDon - Regarding the Jews chosen methods of resistance - I agree that they should not be judged now for that and I am not attempting to do so. I'm judging your position, which is apparently that the world was wrong for trying to save them. Do you care to clarify this, or am I correct in my understanding?
Didn't you say "World War II bears out the reality that nonviolent resistance is a ... practically effective method of combating tyranny" in your closing argument? That is interesting, because a few paragraphs earlier you stated, "Pacifism has ever truly been tried." Now, you're speaking vaguely of it being "resorted to in times of desperation or by charismatic leaders," and claiming it "has often shown impressive results," but you still have not answered the question. How was this proved by WW2? Are there examples of nonviolent resistance showing impressive results in WW2? Was it truly tried then after all? Or does WW2 not really prove this point after all?