CZ52GUY
Member
Byron Quick
I think the "tangential point" I was trying to make, is that we are often too willing to apply a label to an individual, demographic, or even policy that becomes more rigid than the reality of the world we live in.
While a pacifist's goals may include peace and the avoidance of conflict, the pacifist is also a human being capable of unpredictable behavior. His/her views not withstanding, he/she has thousands of years of primitive instincts toward self-preservation to overcome to stand fast to those "loftier convictions".
Bottom line, the bully vs. the pacifist makes the bully a 1-5 favorite without question, but the outcome isn't a lock...which is something all bullys should consider.
In the circumstances of Chamberlain, while we are quick to point out the flaws that history has correctly allocated to him, I think the bully Hitler also miscalculated. "Peace in our time" did not prevent Chamberlain from taking the first steps which the rest of the free world at the time made stick over time.
If Chamberlain pursued failed policies, certainly Hitler did as well. He promised his people an empire which lasted but a VERY SHORT time. His country ended up in ruins, and he ended up dead in a bunker.
Bully vs. Pacifist or Appeaser...in this case score one against the Bully, because the Appeaser's instincts for self-preservation did kick in eventually, which started the process toward the ultimate downfall of the Bully.
Best Regards,
CZ52'
I failed to acknowledge that for a very good reason. The pacifist's goals are peace and the avoidance of conflict. If he confronts his aggressor and defeats him...he doesn't achieve his goals. However, the reason for that example was not to illustrate the full range of options available...it was to illustrate the inevitability of conflict if you have only one agent desiring conflict versus peace requiring at least two agents acting in concert.
I think the "tangential point" I was trying to make, is that we are often too willing to apply a label to an individual, demographic, or even policy that becomes more rigid than the reality of the world we live in.
While a pacifist's goals may include peace and the avoidance of conflict, the pacifist is also a human being capable of unpredictable behavior. His/her views not withstanding, he/she has thousands of years of primitive instincts toward self-preservation to overcome to stand fast to those "loftier convictions".
Bottom line, the bully vs. the pacifist makes the bully a 1-5 favorite without question, but the outcome isn't a lock...which is something all bullys should consider.
In the circumstances of Chamberlain, while we are quick to point out the flaws that history has correctly allocated to him, I think the bully Hitler also miscalculated. "Peace in our time" did not prevent Chamberlain from taking the first steps which the rest of the free world at the time made stick over time.
If Chamberlain pursued failed policies, certainly Hitler did as well. He promised his people an empire which lasted but a VERY SHORT time. His country ended up in ruins, and he ended up dead in a bunker.
Bully vs. Pacifist or Appeaser...in this case score one against the Bully, because the Appeaser's instincts for self-preservation did kick in eventually, which started the process toward the ultimate downfall of the Bully.
Best Regards,
CZ52'