# George Orwell on Pacifism: Nothing Changes! **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 24, 2001, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-orwell-on-pacifism-nothing-changes/89325 "2001-10-24T16:01:54Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 14\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![SuaSponte](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/67e7ee/32.png) [@SuaSponte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SuaSponte)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2001, 10:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-orwell-on-pacifism-nothing-changes/89325/21 "2001-10-26T22:54:43Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by ambushed \* > I think we can all agree that Gandhi’s comment about what he saw as the ultimate Jewish resistance act was nothing but a passing error in judgement. Woah, there, Nelly!! Sorry to interrupt your apologia for Gandhi, but we certainly cannot all agree that it was a “passing error in judgment.” Gandhi’s statement was in utter agreement with his political and moral philosophy. **Do not** try to explain away inconvenient facts by asserting they were aberrations when they were not. The appropriate thing to do in GD is to either defend the statement, or acknowledge Gandhi’s philosophy was in error. Your choice. Bad **ambushed**. Bad, naughty **ambushed**. Sua ---
**Author:** ![SuaSponte](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/67e7ee/32.png) [@SuaSponte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SuaSponte)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2001, 10:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-orwell-on-pacifism-nothing-changes/89325/22 "2001-10-26T22:58:07Z")
After submitting my last post, I see you are trying to apologize for Einstein, **ambushed**. Ooooh, if he didn’t write the letter, Szilard would be mad at him. Of course, that is utter justification for a committed pacifist to recommend the construction of the most deadly weapon ever created. :rolleyes: Sua ---
**Author:** ![Avumede](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/avumede/32/7235_2.png) [@Avumede](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Avumede)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2001, 11:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-orwell-on-pacifism-nothing-changes/89325/23 "2001-10-26T23:34:10Z")
Sua, I don’t think anyone is trying to apologize for Einstein. I think ambushed was just trying to show that he was a pacifist. Perhaps Einstein thought peace could be obtained through MAD. I don’t know, just a guess. But the letter is not logically inconsistent with pacifism. With Ghandi, I can defend his statement (though I may not agree with it myself). Gandhi was in a fairly bad position, as far as PR goes. When he suffers himself to call attention to colonialism or injustice, he looks like a great hero. When his countrymen suffer with him, he still looks not too shabby. When he tells other people to suffer to call attention to their plight, he looks like a real jerk. After all, he wouldn’t have to do anything. But his view is logically consistent, and consistent with a pacifist position. If, for instance, a pacifist Rabbi had said the same thing, it would be taken in a different light. At any rate, Sua, you make a logical error… you think either Gandhi had to be correct, or if he is not correct his philosophy is in error. This is logically incorrect since you miss at least one alternative: that his application of the philosophy may be in error. ---
**Author:** ![Ben](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/df788c/32.png) [@Ben](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ben)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2001, 11:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-orwell-on-pacifism-nothing-changes/89325/24 "2001-10-26T23:41:49Z")
Astorian, I’m curious as to your take on the following verses: Matthew 26:52 "“Put your sword back in its place,” Jesus said to him, “for all who draw the sword will die by the sword.” Luke 6:27-36 27 "But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, 28 bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. 29 If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic. 30 Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. 31 Do to others as you would have them do to you. 32 “If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even `sinners' love those who love them. 33 And if you do good to those who are good to you, what credit is that to you? Even `sinners’ do that. 34 And if you lend to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit is that to you? Even `sinners' lend to `sinners,’ expecting to be repaid in full. 35 But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked. 36 Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.” Matthew 5 39 But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40 And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41 If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. -Ben ---
**Author:** ![Ben](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/df788c/32.png) [@Ben](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ben)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2001, 11:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-orwell-on-pacifism-nothing-changes/89325/25 "2001-10-26T23:46:19Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by astorian \* > \*\* But there is a minority of intellectual pacifists whose real though unadmitted motive appears to be hatred of western democracy and admiration of totalitarianism. … Moreover they do not as a rule condemn violence as such, but only violence used in defense of western countries… Pacifist literature abounds with equivocal remarks which, if they mean anything, appear to mean that statesmen of the type of Hitler are preferable to those of the type of Churchill, and that violence is perhaps excusable if it is violent enough… All in all it is difficult not to feel that pacifism, as it appears among a section of the intelligentsia, is secretly inspired by an admiration for power and successful cruelty. > \*\* Maybe I missed something, but it seems like people are arguing over whether Gandhi’s pacifism was a practical response to Hitler, whether Gandhi was a jerk, whether Gandhi was a “dangerous ignoramus,” etc. The real question, though, is whether Gandhi was secretly inspired by “an admiration for power and successful cruelty” and an “admiration of totalitarianism.” Even if one grants that Gandhi was grossly misguided at times, I don’t see him as being an admirer of totalitarianism. -Ben ---
**Author:** ![ambushed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3bc359/32.png) [@ambushed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ambushed)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2001, 12:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-orwell-on-pacifism-nothing-changes/89325/26 "2001-10-27T00:23:39Z")
The appropriate thing for you to have done, Sua, was to acknowledge that a person can hold an unpopular opinion and still be a noble and principled pacifist rather than a “dangerous ignoramus” for holding to his principles. Disingenuous, Sua. Unfair, disingenuous Sua. ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2001, 12:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-orwell-on-pacifism-nothing-changes/89325/27 "2001-10-27T00:40:27Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by SuaSponte \* > \*\*After submitting my last post, I see you are trying to apologize for Einstein, **ambushed**. Ooooh, if he didn’t write the letter, Szilard would be mad at him. Of course, that is utter justification for a committed pacifist to recommend the construction of the most deadly weapon ever created. :rolleyes: > > Sua \*\* Or, maybe Szilard was able to trick Einstein into signing the letter, because Einstein was so dumb. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![pantom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/34f0e0/32.png) [@pantom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pantom)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2001, 2:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-orwell-on-pacifism-nothing-changes/89325/28 "2001-10-27T02:31:42Z")
Since this seems to have evolved into a debate about Gandhi and Einstein, Orwell did write an essay on when the non-violent resistance of Gandhi could work and when it couldn’t. Unfortunately, I don’t have the book of essays where he wrote his opinion, and that site doesn’t appear to have it either, but working from memory his point was that if you were using it against a democratic government it could be very effective. Against a totalitarian government, though, it would be completely useless. Relating that to the current situation, pacifists now have to answer the question exactly how we are supposed to deal with the Taliban, who are about as totalitarian as you get, or with their like-minded allies Al Qaeda. Non-violent resistance certainly isn’t going to work against these groups. ---
**Author:** ![SuaSponte](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/67e7ee/32.png) [@SuaSponte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SuaSponte)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2001, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-orwell-on-pacifism-nothing-changes/89325/29 "2001-10-27T21:05:47Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by ambushed \* > \*\*The appropriate thing for you to have done, Sua, was to acknowledge that a person can hold an unpopular opinion and still be a noble and principled pacifist rather than a “dangerous ignoramus” for holding to his principles. > > Disingenuous, Sua. Unfair, disingenuous Sua. \*\* **Avumede** and **ambushed** , perhaps you noted that _I did not say one freaking thing about whether or not pacifism is good or bad philosophy_. What I **did** point out is that **ambushed** falsely tried to paint Gandhi’s statement about European Jewry, **which was utterly consistent with Gandhi’s philosphy** , as a “passing error in judgment.” **Ambushed** should have tried to defend Gandhi’s statement on its own merits, or admit that Gandhi’s philosphy was flawed. I don’t care either way - my beef is that it is intellectually dishonest for him to try to fluff off Gandhi’s statement, rather than fairly addressing it. As for **Einstein** , the letter brings up the legitimate question of whether Einstein was truly a pacifist. I may assert to the heavens that I am a pacifist, but if I take a job in R&D and WeaponsCo., IMHO, I am not a pacifist. Similarly, Einstein’s public statements about pacifism are utterly inconsistent with his letter to FDR. **Avemude** , I appreciate your point about MAD, but I do not think that rehabilitates Einstein’s pacifism, as MAD requires a commitment to actually use the deterrent, if necessary, in order to be an effective deterrent. And I think **ambushed’s** attempt to fluff off the letter as being written under pressure is absurd. A position dropped under pestering by a friend is not a position deeply held. Einstein couldn’t even claim duress; what could Szilard do to Einstein if Einstein stuck to his alleged principles? Sua ---
**Author:** ![Wumpus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/8c91f0/32.png) [@Wumpus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wumpus)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2001, 10:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-orwell-on-pacifism-nothing-changes/89325/30 "2001-10-27T22:29:49Z")
Since I’ve posted this link to just about every other thread here: [http://www.k-1.com/Orwell/ghandi.htm](http://www.k-1.com/Orwell/ghandi.htm) It’s George Orwell’s essay on Ghandi. ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2001, 3:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-orwell-on-pacifism-nothing-changes/89325/31 "2001-10-28T03:17:13Z")
Orwell appears to have been right on the money when it comes to Gandhi and his attitude toward the combatants in the Second World War. Orwell, in the link Wumpus provided, says “…there is reason to think that Gandhi did not understand the nature of totalitarianism…and saw everything in terms of his own struggle against the British government.” That may be the most accurate, and is certainly the most charitable way to view this statement by Gandhi, writing in the Indian newspaper _Harijan_ on June 22, 1940, when the French had collapsed under the weight of the German offensive: “Germans of future generations will honour Herr Hitler as a genius, as a brave man, a matchless organizer and much more.” My source for this quote, Len Deighton in _Blood, Tears and Folly_ is more succinct about Gandhi’s motivations, saying only “Success always wins friends.” ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2001, 1:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-orwell-on-pacifism-nothing-changes/89325/32 "2001-10-29T01:27:18Z")
I don’t know if columnist Andrew Sullivan reads this thread, but he has some interesting Orwell quotes in his me-zine. See [http://www.andrewsullivan.com/](http://www.andrewsullivan.com/) and scroll down just a bit to Thought For The Day. Unfortunately, his site is white on purple, and I don’t know how to cut and paste from it. (Can anyone on this panel tell me how to do so?) Sullivan quotes Orwell: > [@](#): > > The London left intelegensia are now completely defeatist, look on the situation as hopeless and all but wish to surrender. How easy it ought to have been to foresee. This was written in 1940, one year into WW II. Sullivan makes the point that today’s LLI have become defeatist about the anti-terrorism war in just a few weeks. Sullivan also has an interesting Orwell quote about living in a masturbation fantasy, which I won’t bother to re-type here, since you can link to it. Like many on this thread, Sullivan finds that Orwell still has much to contribute. ---
**Author:** ![DPWhite](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/d26b3c/32.png) [@DPWhite](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DPWhite)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2001, 1:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-orwell-on-pacifism-nothing-changes/89325/33 "2001-10-29T01:45:41Z")
I’ve always admired pacifists. You can’t really test your ideas that a war is justified unless you test it against the full range of opposing positions, and that includes pacifism. We are a plural democracy, and so we must protect the right of people to dissent, particularly peaceful dissent. ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2001, 1:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-orwell-on-pacifism-nothing-changes/89325/34 "2001-10-29T01:55:19Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by DPWhite \* We are a plural democracy, and so we must protect the right of people to dissent, particularly peaceful dissent. \*\* I’ve seen a number of statements along this line, and they annoy me. Yes, of course we must protect the right of people to dissent. But, DPWhite’s statement includes an implication that this warning is needed – that the right of a pacifist to dissent peacefully is likely to be taken away. If you really believe this is so, DP, I invite you to show some evidence. So far I’ve seen criticism of anti-war positions, but not threats against free speech. Peace demonstrations have been held in a number of cities and on several campuses, and AFAIK they continue to be permitted. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-orwell-on-pacifism-nothing-changes/89325.md?page=1)