Would pacifism have wider support in the western world in a world without WWII?

[riggerrob]

The farther you are from the fight, the easier it is to be pacifist. Few Canadian citizens ever heard about U-boat victories- in the St. Lawrence Rive - r during WW2.
Quebec was pacifist during both World Wars.
During WW1, the first rush of volunteers were born in the UK. Once that batch of recent immigrants dried up, the Canadian Army struggled to recruit replacements. Replacements were doubly difficult to recruit in French-speaking Canadian towns, because few Acadian, Metis or Québécois wanted anything to do with another foolish European war. Pacifist attitudes created Conscription Crisis in both 1917 and 1944.
Many Canadians believe that the USA only joined both World Wars when their British and French clients were at risk of defaulting on war loans.

 

[ferdi254]

One should go and ask the Indians and all the other subjects in the British empire how pacifistic in their view GB was in the 30s. And again, trying to avoid having a war is not being pacifistic. A pacifist would have no empire, no navy and not a couple hundred million people which are subjugated by the army. And until 1936 there was hardly anything against one would have to increase spendings on weapons.

 

[Michele]

And again, trying to avoid having a war is not being pacifistic.

You are wrong. That's exactly what pacifism means.

Maybe you have an axe to grind with regard to the British Commonwealth and Empire (please take a number and wait), but in that case, the accusation should be of it being, well, imperialist, which is not the same thing as not being pacifist. A power might well want to cling on to its colonies and territories (and clinging on might mean some robust internal counterinsurgency operations too); but at the same time be unwilling to go on a further conquest spree through warring against other powers.

By way of comparison, in the same time frame, you only have to look at the Japanese and Italian Empires, which were both imperialist and bent on gaining a larger empire through wars of aggression. Those were non-pacifist empires.

Naturally, the British Empire had come into being through wars, too - but not in the time frame we're talking about.

 

[ferdi254]

Well right now you have defined pacifism in a way that even the USSR after 1945 was a pacifistic state.

 

[riggerrob]

The USSR was pacifist because they avoided direct conflict with other nuclear-armed nations.
So, during the Cold War, the USSR shifted its military efforts to supporting a variety of "proxy wars" in Asia, Africa, South America, etc. Often the USSR supplied weapons while Cubans, etc. provided man-power.
Sometimes these proxy wars masqueraded as "foreign aid" via medical, educational or industrial subsidies. A retired, Canadian-born surgeon told me about the time he worked in an Afghan hospital (1960s). Czech doctors worked in another hospital across the street. "We were proxies for the Americans while they were proxies for the Russians.

 

[ferdi254]

The point is if pacifistic state means any state that does not engage in a war of aggression than most funnily nearly 100% of all states have been pacifist for most of time. And then the discussion about pacifism and its influence on anything becomes quite meaningless.

There is war weariness, appeasement and pacifism and there is a reason why there are different words because they have different meanings.

 

[Michele]

Well right now you have defined pacifism in a way that even the USSR after 1945 was a pacifistic state.

That's ridiculous, I'm surprised you can say that. Apart from the proxy wars mentioned by @riggerrob above, every ten years or so the Soviet Union invaded one of its brotherly Socialist states in Europe, and concluded with a bang in the years-long Afghanistan War.

 

[The Tai-Pan]

The USSR was pacifist because they avoided direct conflict with other nuclear-armed nations.

The USSR was an authoritarian police state built on force and oppression of its residents, which regularly indulged in bluntly obvious wars of aggression.

 

[Michele]

The point is if pacifistic state means any state that does not engage in a war of aggression than most funnily nearly 100% of all states have been pacifist for most of time.

If that were true, how come that wars happen?

That's because there's plenty of non-pacifist states that like their wars of aggression. Since you've started with the British Empire, and we're talking about the 1920s-30s, do consider replying to the counterexamples I made, the Italian and Japanese Empires.

 

[ferdi254]

Yes Italy and Japan were not pacifistic that makes 2 out of 60. ok 97%.
Otherwise see my last post muddling definitions is not helping in any way to increase knowledge.

 

[ferdi254]

Michele: GB had the army right in25% of the world and was using it regularly to quell down rebellions.

But in this thread I was told by you that GB was a pacifistic state. I just pointed out that if you define pacifistic to include the GB in the 30s then it becomes meaningless and used the USSR as an example.

 

[Michele]

Michele: GB had the army right in25% of the world and was using it regularly to quell down rebellions.

Internal rebellions. That's not aggressive in any way. And in any case, in the 1920s-30s, that's a few Iraqi tribes and a pretty low intensity Arab guerrilla in the Palestinian mandate.

But in this thread I was told by you that GB was a pacifistic state. I just pointed out that if you define pacifistic to include the GB in the 30s then it becomes meaningless and used the USSR as an example.

Yeah, the state that regularly invaded its European supposed allies, and invaded, occupied, massacred and finally was booted out of Afghanistan.

By way of comparison, the British lost some 300 killed servicemen in the so-called "Great" Arab revolt in Palestine; the Soviets lost 15.000 killed servicemen in Afghanistan. The British were policing a LoN mandate, i.e. they had invaded nobody; the Soviets outright invaded Afghanistan.

Really you can't see the difference?

 

[The Tai-Pan]

The British Empire wasn't pacifistic either, of course. They had pacifistic political trends in some circles and there was anti-war (for certain types of wars) feeling among some of the populace but the Empire itself was, as all empires are, founded and based on brute force.

 

[Michele]

the Empire itself was, as all empires are, founded and based on brute force.

Huh, all states are based on being able to enforce their government's will in their territory. By using, of course, force.

Some states also are remarkably inclined to go to war and invade neighbor states.

The British Empire in the 1920s-30s was clearly more than willing to use force to uphold its laws in its own territories, and in its LoN mandates as well. In that, it was no different from any state that isn't going to go belly up in anarchy.
However, it was not willing to seek war with other states. It was actually remarkably averse to that, especially in the 1930s.

 

[The Tai-Pan]

Huh, all states are based on being able to enforce their government's will in their territory. By using, of course, force.

Some states also are remarkably inclined to go to war and invade neighbor states.

The British Empire in the 1920s-30s was clearly more than willing to use force to uphold its laws in its own territories, and in its LoN mandates as well. In that, it was no different from any state that isn't going to go belly up in anarchy.
However, it was not willing to seek war with other states. It was actually remarkably averse to that, especially in the 1930s.

There haven't really been any pacifistic states, far as I know.

 

[ferdi254]

Funny how India is an internal affair while Hungary 1956 becomes a war of agression. Afghanistan of course is a point but that still means 40 years without aggressive wars.
But last statement in this thread from me:

Pacifism somehow being responsible forWW2 is an argument where one needs the French and British empires to be pacifistic. Two countries that had large armies, navies and airforces which they were not shy to use to keep their colonies to continue the government of them and the exploitation. If ruling hundreds of millions of foreigners against their will is compatible with being pacifistic there are two possibilities:

1. This definition of pacifism is useless in any debate trying to get insights but only serves a political agenda.
2. With a very few exceptions nearly all states have always been pacifistic thus voiding the term of any meaning.

And I wonder what people from the USA would say about a pacifistic state putting down internal rebellions see 1776 ff.

 

[GeographyDude]

Sometimes these proxy wars masqueraded as "foreign aid" via medical, educational or industrial subsidies. A retired, Canadian-born surgeon told me about the time he worked in an Afghan hospital (1960s). Czech doctors worked in another hospital across the street. "We were proxies for the Americans while they were proxies for the Russians.

This is where we had a virtuous upward circle.

And potentially, COULD HAVE HAD a lot more. The U.S. and USSR could have competed to win the hearts and minds of people in developing nations with university admissions, engineering projects, sweetheart trade deals, etc, etc, etc.

 

[GDIS Pathe]

Funny how India is an internal affair while Hungary 1956 becomes a war of agression.

Hungary was a nominally independent republic, India was... not

 

[Michele]

Funny how India is an internal affair while Hungary 1956 becomes a war of agression.

India was part of the British Empire. Hungary was not part of the Soviet Union. Is that simple enough?

And I wonder what people from the USA would say about a pacifistic state putting down internal rebellions see 1776 ff.

Dude, I understand you have an axe to grind with regard to the British Empire, but we're talking about the 1920s-1930s here. You have been told this repeatedly. The subforum here is "after 1900". Nobody has ever claimed the British Empire was pacifist when it conquered territories in India. 1776? Take that to the relevant forum.

 

[Michele]

There haven't really been any pacifistic states, far as I know.

All over their history? Maybe the very small ones. Iceland, and smaller. Not by virtue, evidently, but by necessity.

For part of their history, say in the 1930s? Sure, the British Commonwealth and Empire. The Iraqi problem was essentially over, the Palestinian troubles were little more than large police operations, and sure as hell they did not want to go to a major war with any external power, full stop.