Sincere Pacifists

Pacifism is a wonderful ideal, but it only works if everyone signs on.

ItDepends on your definition of works. Pacifism is not a panacea that makes everyone in the world suddenly peaceful. Pacifism is does not make everyone agree with you or obey you or do what you wish. Of course, making war doesn't work by these definitions, either. So, what is your success criteria? -- GeorgeDinwiddie

How 'bout "the continued existence of the country where I live"? -- MikeSmith (did not write the original statement, BTW)

Well, history has shown that it is not Pacifism that allows "continued existence of the country where I live" but fighting to protect it. This is not Utopia - this is the Planet Earth. Of course history also shows us that aristocracies are the most successful way to run a country/people. No wait ... The idea is that we can outgrow some of these things. War is one of those things that could very well be the end of us all, if we do not mature beyond it as a race.

Pacifism is one of those things that would certainly be the end of us all, if we do not mature beyond it as a race.
You mean species? There's no such thing as "race". Curiously, exactly the same statement can be made about the opposite of pacifism. Compromise is the pragmatic solution: Trust everybody, but cut the cards.

Yeah, that's kinda what I was getting at. -- MikeSmith

Costa Rica seems to be surviving just fine without an army. I suspect many (but not all) countries could do the same.

Also, India probably owes its existence to Pacifism. If Ghandi had not used non-violent protest to call for the Independence of India I don?t think it would have been granted so soon. Also, I would imagine that without Ghandi?s actions it would have been done piecemeal, so we would have had another region like the Balkans or Middle east with many ill defined states such as Gujurat, Punjab, and dare I suggest it Kashmir.

India owes its existence to rejecting pacifism with Pakistan

Of course, without Ghandi, it's possible that the breakup would have been done in such a way as to prevent the intermittent wars between Pakistan and India. Certainly, most of Britain's former colonies gained independence and stability. And, of course, Ghandi's pacifist tactics would only have worked on the British.

All of your scenarios above presume no Hitler, who, no matter how much you ignore him, wants to overrun your country and kill millions. So the Pacifist approach is to let him until he runs out of people? This question also applies to the terrorists.

Hitler felt the need to stage an attack by Poland in order to set off the war. This would have been impossible if Poland had had no army at the time. Always, attackers are on the lookout for some pretext, some 'humiliation' in order to start a war. The simple answer is to provide them with no pretext and let them quietly go insane. History provides the example of the Carter era when Americans were terrified that "peace had broken out all over" the world.

Since the attackers are defined as insane, why do you think that they will not invent a pretext on their own, and attack anyway. If Poland had had no army, Hitler would have invaded anyway (Austria, IIRC, was taken in this manner [correction welcome]).

[I don't recall the Carter administration as being a peaceful time. There are always wars going on somewhere. Didn't the USSR-Afghanistan mess begin then...]

The Carter era was a time when millions were being slaughtered under communism and Iranian terrorists overthrew the relatively peaceful Shah in a bloodbath. Also North Korea, emboldened by Carter's weakness (pacifism) started their nuclear program.

Further, the holocaust began before WWII started, as a purely civilian operation. And WWII started because Hitler wanted to escalate the murder/suicide of Germans. The purpose of the war was to send German youth to die on the front. So Germany (and its Hitler figurehead) can be characterized as a suicidal nation instead of a homicidal one. "Suicide by cop" is a well-known phenomenon in the USA. Is it better to deal with a suicidal patient (nation) by a psychiatrist (diplomat) or calling in the cops (soldiers)?

The purpose of the war was to send German youth to die on the front. I really don't think so - on what is this based? The popular propaganda of the time. For example, slogans about how young Germans would shed blood and die for the Fatherland.