Dictators and Pacifists
by Mitch Jones
This is my second article about pacifism. The first was written just
before
the Afghanistan War. Since then the world scene has changed a bit.
Things
aren’t any safer since the war. We are now at “Orange Alert.”
Afghanistan
isn’t any freer. There’s a small part of the country that is ruled by a
puppet
regime, but warlords, vigilante sects of the Northern Alliance, run the
rest.
Now we come to another war and with it another anti-war movement. Again,
the
same arguments come up. I’d like to explain the logic of pacifism once
and for
all because it is what is needed right now. Militarism is making things
worse.
The issue that critics of pacifism always seem to bring up is that of
Hitler.
Of course, they don’t remember that he called his attack on the
Sudetenland was
called a “humanitarian intervention,” using the same rhetoric that today’s
war
philosophers use. Also, the British appeasement of Hitler was not the
result
of pacifism. It was the result of indecisiveness on the part of the
authorities in the countries that later became the Allies. They were
not
willing to take a stand against injustice, violently or non-violently.
The
finally became a necessary war when Hitler’s aggression was too late.
Chamberlain’s decision at Munich was based on the idea that if Britain
supported Hitler then he would not attack England. This was obviously
wrong.
Historians have pointed out that the German courts were ready to oust
Hitler at
any sign of international protest. Some did protest, however. The
Anarchists
and Communists in America, some of who did fight violently in the
Spanish Civil
War against fascism, who opposed Hitler were suppressed, deported and
jailed.
American racists fueled the isolationism of the 1930s.
What would the pacifists have done about Hitler? There are a couple of
ideas.
The Treaty of Versailles was a document that fueled German hatreds and
caused
economic hardships for the Germans, which led to the scapegoating of
Jews and
other groups. Perhaps if the treaty had been drafted fairly Hitler
would not
have risen to power. Also, if Britain and the United States had come
out
against Hitler in their rhetoric from very early on he would not have
got as
far as he did – to the point where his aggression lead to war. David
McReynolds points out several non-violent victories against Hitler in an
essay
on the Philosophy of Nonviolence on Nonviolence.org. He writes:
“But within Occupied Europe there were well documented victories for
nonviolence. In Norway there was a successful teachers' strike against
being
forced to teach Nazi ideology. In Denmark the opposition to the Nazis
was led
by the King, who said that if the Jews had to put on the "Yellow Star of
David", then he, the King, would be the first man in Denmark to put one
on.
When the Nazis moved to arrest the Danish Jews, members of the Gestapo
leaked
this news to the Danish authorities and in 48 hours virtually all the
Jews in
Denmark were gotten to safety in Sweden. In Bulgaria, which had no
history of
anti-Semitism, spontaneous civil resistance (including crowds sitting on
train
tracks) prevented the Nazis from shipping any Jews out of the country.”
Of course, no one can know what could have stopped Hitler, but we can
use it as
an example from the past and learn from it.
Some have pointed out that there are parallels between Adolph Hitler and
Saddam
Hussein. Ideologically, Saddam Hussein is probably more like Stalin,
the
dictator who ordered thousands of young boys to die fighting against
Hitler,
but for the sake of argument we’ll discuss the parallels that seem
apparent.
First of all, Saddam Hussein was brought to power by the United States
and
supported by the United States. Had the anti-Saddam movement been
listened to
early on the mess would not be created. Of course, these are all what-if’s,
but if the critics of pacifism are going to use them to ask ‘What if
violence
wasn’t used against Hitler,’ then I’ll ask, ‘What if the United States
hadn’t
supported Saddam Hussein?’ A lot of talk about weapons of mass
destruction has
revolved around Iraq since the early 1990s, however what they don’t tell
you is
that the United States sold Iraq many of those weapons.
Second, like the Treaty of Versailles, the sanctions after the first
Gulf War
have caused economic hardship in Iraq. These sanctions were meant to
weaken
Saddam Hussein’s hold on Iraq. Although I don’t disagree with sanctions
as a
general practice (they definitely worked in South Africa to end
apartheid
almost non-violently apart from a few riots) the sanctions on Iraq have
not
worked. They have only strengthened Saddam Hussein like the Treaty of
Versailles did for Adolph Hitler. The Iraqi people resent the United
States
more than Saddam Hussein for the economic hardships they’ve had to face.
Finally, the question of ‘what do we do about Saddam Hussein’ needs to
be
answered. It is obvious that it is too late to correct the mistakes
made in
the past. However, the United States could have done much to improve
its image
in Iraq. Expanding the Oil For Food program and making real efforts
toward a
Palestinian state would weaken Saddam Hussein.
As far as weapons of mass destruction go, the inspections were working.
Iraq
was making moves toward disarming. Other diplomatic means as well
should at
least have been tried.
Before the war there was plenty of anti-war criticism. However, since
the war
has started such criticism seems to have waned. This is unfortunate.
Jingoistic ideas about “supporting our troops” should not cloud the
discussion. The world has told George Bush NO, but our illusions of
Democracy
have been shattered. Pacifism is seen as offensive. A philosophy that
opposes
all murder is seen as offensive. Doesn’t that indicate that there is
something
wrong with our society’s priorities?
