h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

as an aging hippie from the so called swinging sixties our slogan was make love not war thats why we are worn out now all that love making,instead of trying to make the peace movement work as lennon said all we are saying is give peace a chance.
peace to the world long live the revolution

Hi Redken.

Nice to have you here. Some of the peace protests I've been at lately have had a much broader base of ages and suchlike than I'd expected. So, any tips for us youngsters? What do you think was achieved by the hippies, whats been lost since and what does this suggest we should learn?



pj

us old hippies thought we could change things through love and drugs.we were wrong love does play a part in it so does understanding people of different races and talking with them to try and understand that we are all one race the human variety. so lets talk and work together for the sake of peace.

yeah, hey there i wish the government could take a look into history once in a while, and see what a bad idea war is. that would solve a lot of problems. and if they listened to people as well...

I'm sorry, but I'm going to rock the boat a little here. I am at heart a pacifist, however, we must bear in mind that it takes two to talk. World War II was a terrible waste of life, however, could it have been solved through words, the answer is yes but only if Germany had been willing. The problem is that you can spread the word and ask for peace, but if the other side isn't listening it won't do any good.
However, in my heart of hearts I believe that one day we, as a species, can unite. What is more I believe we can unite through peace. However, we musn't force our ideals, we musn't berate those that won't listen, we must be patient. In the end the truth will always reveal itself.

World War II seems to be a tricky subject among many pacifists. This war does not seem as tricky. Taleban has clearly expressed a willingness to negotiate on the issue. Bush made it clear that he would not negotiate, that the severity of the attack on the US removed any necessity for diplomacy or negotiations (or international law for that matter, but nothing new there).

This situation could have been solved with words. The Taleban is not invading other countries like 1930s Germany. The Taleban is the one calling for negotiations, while the US refuses to negotiate.

"The problem is that you can spread the word and ask for peace, but if the other side isn't listening it won't do any good."

In this case, George W. Bush is not listening.

I have to agree.

wouldnt it be nice to dream of a world where every one gets on, regardless of anything. that would be lovely, unlikely, but we all have to have our dreams

Lets be clear about WWII - two separate things were going on in that war.

Firstly, the invasion of Central and Western European nations by a European nation.

And secondly genocide.

Looking back, we are horrified by the genocide - but killing on that scale was not unique in the 20th Century. Stalin did it. Mao did it. Pol Pott did it. And it has happened in Uganda in the 70s and in Rawanda in the last decade. The difference is that the vitims of the holocaust were white, and the machinery was photographed.

But the Allies did not go into WWII to prevent genocide, any more than anyone tried to stop Stalin, Mao or Pol Pott.

The Allies went into WWII to prevent further invasion, in the same way they went into WWI to prevent invasion.

WWII is justified after the fact by the holocaust. But it while it was being fought it was just another European War about European invasions, and just the most recent one in the two millenia of European invasions.

So I do not think that WWII was a special case in the way it is usually presented to be a special case.

a Brit called Ben
in Munich

Good call, Ben. It has been hyped as a pure and just war, largely ignoring atrocities like the bombing of Dresden, and acting like Hiroshima was necessary.

But I was thinking more from the US angle on WWII, which is partially an act of self-defense after the bombing of Pearl Harbor. (Although I realize it is a much more complicated situation than pure self-defense, because US and other nations had antagonized Japan in other ways. Still, it's hard to fault Americans for waging war after an attack on US-controlled territory.)

I agree with all you said though (on this message thread).

Indeed WWII was as much about the Halocaust as the American Civil War was about slavery. At the end of day war is never about doing the right thing, it is always about Power, Land, Wealth or Ideology.
However, the point I was originally trying to make was that Peace is only possible when both sides are willing, and WWII is in fact a prime example. The fact was that Hitler made it clear from his outset that he wished for nothing but war. The abolition of the 100,000 man army, the anschluss, the annexing of the Sudetenland and the discussion of Lebensraum all pointed to one motive.
Furthermore, the tragedy of WWII is that it was mostly due to the failure of the peacemakers that it happened at all. Europe at the time was neither ready or willing for war. It was believed that if Hitler's demands were met then war could be avoided. However, this policy of appeasement served to further bolster Hitler's own confidence.

Some years ago I read a history of Europe in the 20th Century, and what struck me incredibly forcibly was that Britain went into WW2 when Poland was invaded by a foreign power, and because of Hitler's invasion of other nations in Europe.

When Germany was defeated, Poland and many of the nations which had been occupied by Germany were then left under occupation by the USSR.

It seemed to me that the war stopped in 1945 because the Allies were bone tired. But that freedom from invasion was only a reality for France, Scandinavia, Austria and the Benelux countries. The Balkans, Chechsolovakia, Hungary, Poland, and the Baltics, all of which were occupied by Hitler, were left occupied by Stalin instead.

I can understand why the allies opted for Peace in 1945, but it still struck me as an unfinished war. Which of course is what the Cold War was all about.

The real question is: was 5 years of hot war a better way to defeat oppression and dictatorship, or was 50 years of cold war? Is it better to spend 5 years at war, or 50 years under oppression? The just war or unjust peace question.

Ben