after D-Day . . . branch points which pacifists or Gene Sharp advocates may like?

I include Gene Sharp to invite you to include more sophisticated pacifists and near-pacifists. Basically, his thesis is that nonviolence is often better on tactical grounds alone. For example, it tends to energize and unify your side, and it often splits the opposition on questions of how to respond to you.

So, yes, what are a couple of PODs pacifists might like after D-Day June 6, 1944?
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure why would they be relevant nor helpful given that WWII had to be won despite the price the Allied nations had to pay in terms of personnel and material.
 

nbcman

Donor
Any POD that results in the war ending sooner against the two remaining murderous / genocidal regimes. The Nazis and Imperial Japan were not going to be moved by any statements or actions by 'sophisticated pacifists' to disarm or to leave the territories that they had conquered.
 
Very little. WW2 was recognized by all the powers as one that had to be won through force of arms. The Axis believed it was the only way to carve out and impose their own unique set of racial and imperialistic goals whilst the allies saw it has a battle to preserve their ideologies and very existence in some cases. Pacifism could be perhaps attempted as a form of psychological warfare such as dropping leaflets over populated areas to encourage people to cease work or refuse to fight but this would almost certainly always result in utter failure. Nationalist sentiment and propaganda were very effective in indoctrinating people about the consequences of failure (especially in Axis nations after 1943) and punishments were fairly draconian for acts of overt cowardice, which would be more or less what pacifism was associated with at the time. Honestly, I cannot imagine someone of military age being allowed to get away with declaring themselves a pacifist in the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, Italy or Japan.They would be shot, intimidated or thrown in gulags/concentration camps if they refused to fight or work.
 
For example, it tends to energize and unify your side, and it often splits the opposition on questions of how to respond to you.

No matter how energized and unified the Allies are from their sudden paroxysm of pacifism, I somehow doubt Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan are going to be at all divided on how to respond to them...
 
hacksaw-ridge-2016-images-andrew-garfield.jpg

Just as example that pacifists are not always passive!
 
They'd already done enough harm and led to enough extra dead in the 1939-1941 period, no?
I think keeping the U.S. out of the war was the America First crowd and plus, the whole idea that we're responding to and debating the previous war.
 
The most obvious point is the 20th July plot, however I'm not sure whether whoever took over after a successful plot would be able to negotiate a peace with the western allies who had resolved on total surrender. Furthermore, even though Goering (the more likely contender for taking over after Hitler was dead) would probably clear house of some of the more fanatical Nazis, I doubt very much that the Holocaust would have stopped under his rule, and the war with the Soviets would definitely continued even if the war with the Western Allies was able to be stopped.
Then there's Imperial Japan, which by '44 was fully dedicated to the war, I don't think there's any real way to make them surrender before '45.

Honestly, the only thing you could perhaps do is give the Manhatten Project ridiculous amounts of good fortune so that they manage to get a few working devices before '45, and then use a couple to take Germany out of the war and then the same to Japan. Although you'd still need to take Tinian and insure air superiority over the Japanese home islands before any mission could proceed.
 
They came for my enemies and I said nothing. They came for my neighbors and I said nothing. They came for my friends and I said nothing. Now they come for me.
Pacifism works when your enemies are moral. Europe attempted to rectify Versailles by reasoning with Germany, first by allowing Germany to reoccupy it's occupied territory (Rhineland) and then accepting Austrian dreams of joining the Reich. When Germany illegally occupied Czechoslovakia it became obvious to the West they were dealing with a regime that exploited and abused diplomacy and trust. Poland was the line France and the UK could not allow to be crossed not simply for pride but for the freedom of Europe. Each act of appeasement emboldened fascists across the globe by showing the West to be "weak" by not acting but talking. Abyssinia, Albania, Manchuria, etc are other examples of what happens when powers stand back and try to talk. Some people just don't care and they see inaction as proof of weakness rather than moral strength.
By standing back, the millions lost in Europe and the millions more lost in Asia will forever haunt us; their whispers muting peaceful platitudes. The Third Reich didn't want coexistence, neither did Japan. They wanted a new order forged in the fire of war and genocide.
The Jews first tried law and then submission, believing Germany too moral and human to do what was to come. They submitted to torture, slavery, and death. Meekly.
Sometimes you have to fight. The most noble wars are the ones not for you or me or country, not for glory or gain, but for one's fellow man. A pacifist can enjoy their principles as long as someone is willing to defend them.
You cite Hacksaw Ridge. I cite Sgt. York. Sometimes you have to fight. Sometimes some have to die so others can live.
 
Last edited:
They came for my enemies and I said nothing. They came for my neighbors and I said nothing. They came for my friends and I said nothing. Now they come for me.
Pacifism works when your enemies are moral. Europe attempted to rectify Versailles by reasoning with Germany, first by allowing Germany to reoccupy it's occupied territory (Rhineland) and then accepting Austrian dreams of joining the Reich. When Germany illegally occupied Czechoslovakia it became obvious to the West they were dealing with a regime that exploited and abused diplomacy and trust. Poland was the line France and the UK could not allow to be crossed not simply for pride but for the freedom of Europe. Each act of appeasement emboldened fascists across the globe by showing the West to be "weak" by not acting but talking. Abyssinia, Albania, Manchuria, etc are other examples of what happens when powers stand back and try to talk. Some people just don't care and they see inaction as proof of weakness rather than moral strength.
By standing back, the millions lost in Europe and the millions more lost in Asia will forever haunt us; their whispers muting peaceful platitudes. The Third Reich didn't want coexistence, neither did Japan. They wanted a new order forged in the fire of war and genocide.
The Jews first tried law and then submission, believing Germany too moral and human to do what was to come. They submitted to torture, slavery, and death. Meekly.
Sometimes you have to fight. The most noble wars are the ones not for you or me or country, not for glory or gain, but for one's fellow man. A pacifist can enjoy their principles as long as someone is willing to defend them.
You cite Hacksaw Ridge. I cite Sgt. York. Sometimes you have to fight. Sometimes some have to die so others can live.
Indeed, some wars have to fought to save the lives of others, especially one involving a certain Islamic State...
 
The Jews first tried law and then submission, believing Germany too moral and human to do what was to come. They submitted to torture, slavery, and death. Meekly.
No, I do not agree. Jews fought back in a variety of ways. There was the Warsaw ghetto uprising of 1943. Some Jews fought at a street assembly point. Some Jews ambushed Nazi soldiers as they entered buildings. Mordechai Anielewicz was one of the leaders of the uprising.

There were the rich Jewish investors who initially supported Oskar Schindler, perhaps viewing him as a kind of an insurance policy. There was Oskar's Jewish accountant and right-hand man.

There was the Rosenstrasse protest. This cut across Nazi ideological categories since these were Gentile wives who gathered in the square outside the prison where their Jewish husbands were being held, and did so against police orders. This all happened in Berlin. What I don't hear talked much is that I think this was an advantage. In the outskirts of their empire, the Nazis could have gunned down the wives and then massively lied about the circumstances. But they'd have a lot more trouble doing this in their capital city. And I take this as one of the points of Gene Sharp, the details of how you do nonviolent action matters a lot.
 
Last edited:
The most obvious point is the 20th July plot, however I'm not sure whether whoever took over after a successful plot would be able to negotiate a peace with the western allies who had resolved on total surrender. Furthermore, even though Goering (the more likely contender for taking over after Hitler was dead) would probably clear house of some of the more fanatical Nazis...

If WALKURE succeeded, Goering gets the chop. And while the Allies will still insist on unconditional surrender, unlike the Nazis, the SK regime won't fight to the last ditch. By the end of 1944, the fronts will be at the borders of Germany. The Allies' implacable determination to crush will be manifest.The SK regime will see two choices:

Surrender. Germany will be completely occupied, lose much territory, be partially occupied and looted by the Soviets, be completely disarmed, and subjected to war crimes prosecutions judged by the victors.

Fight on, which means at best holding out for six additional months. During that six months, 500,000 tons of bombs will be dropped on Germany, a million or so German soldiers will be killed, and German territory will be devastated by fighting. Then Germany will be completely occupied, lose much territory, be partially occupied and looted by the Soviets, be completely disarmed, and subjected to war crimes prosecutions judged by the victors.

IOW, all that Germany can get by not surrendering is additional beating. It will take several months for that to sink in, but once it does, the only viable choice for anyone with a conscience is clear.
 
http://www.quakerinfo.org/quakerism/branches/today

' . . . affiliating organizations (the three organizations through which many North American Friends are affiliated include Friends General Conference, Friends United Meeting, and Evangelical Friends Church International). Some Friends are not associated with any of these organizations; some are affiliated with more than one. . . '
Not all Quakers are necessarily pacifists!

Yes, we could talk about threshold effects. It's possible that the United States could have had enough conscientious objectors to make a difference in the fighting phase of the war, although I think this is rather unlikely.

A more likely threshold effect would happen in the rebuilding phase. And with more citizen activism in the post-war period, will this increase the amount we take the high road and is this likely to make things go better?
 
At first glance, I'd say the big thing is that Berlin was a hair trigger between the Soviet Union and the United States for some 20 years.

Of course, there's an intriguing philosophic issue in that this situation did not actually lead to war, although with history re-run in slightly different ATLs, it may have.
 
Top