2026/01/14 by Alexandre Christoyannopoulos · 1 voice
Arts and Humanities · Social Sciences · #War, Ethics, and Justification #Indian History and Philosophy #World Wars: History, Literature, and Impact
paper · pdf · doi:10.1017/eis.2025.10039
Abstract This article tackles head-on a question that is often thought to defeat pacifism: ‘How then would you react against a Nazi invasion?’ That multiple wars are still recurrently justified as necessary to confront yet another ‘Hitler’ makes tackling this question critically relevant far beyond pacifist circles. On the Nazi context specifically: the question comes too late if pitched in 1939; militarism did not deter Hitler; there were actually many examples of nonviolent resistance against Nazis; even Hitler was mindful of public opinion; and the fight ‘against Nazis’ claimed many non-Nazi German victims too. More generally, and adding theoretical depth: pacifism need not entail a single absolute rejection of violence in all scenarios; nonviolent resistance has been proved to be effective; war-readiness has a corrosive constitutive impact; the Nazi question tends to assume that the application of retaliatory violence is controllable; and to presume that violence is the only option is absolutist and idealistic. Far from delivering a conclusive victory, the Nazi question, carefully considered and discussed, exposes cracks in conventional thinking about violence and war and provides opportunities to unpack and clarify multiple arguments advanced by pacifism.