[AnimalMuppet]

"Those who have no swords can still die on them" - Tolkein

Responding to violence aimed at destroying or enslaving your society with enough violence to prevent it is kind of required by any society that does not have a death wish.

I can choose to respond with pacifism to violence directed at me. I do not have the right to choose that for anyone else, nor for my nation.

[avar]

None of the actors in WWI were set on destroying or enslaving entire societies within Europe. The losers would have been forced to live under a different political system, not been subjected to genocide.

Would it really have mattered to the common man? Maybe not. did it matter to the common man that he or his sons got sent away to war to die? Definitely.

Pacifism can be a sensible policy sometimes. Some wars aren't worth fighting, even if you "win" or force a stalemate.

[bashinator]

> None of the actors in WWI were set on destroying or enslaving entire societies within Europe.

This is not entirely true. The term "war of attrition" came from WWI, and it was specifically referring to depopulating the opponent's country by killing all the males.

[vkou]

The term "War of attrition" came from WWI because after the first three months of hostilities, everyone realized that the only way one side would win, is for all the people on the other side to be dead. Or for the United States to join the conflict.

The Kaiser wasn't a bloodthristy genocidal maniac, and an unconditional surrender from the Entente would not have been the only outcome of an early peace. War reparations, and, as per most European wars, small territorial/colonial concessions would have been the far more likely outcome.

What really was at stake was national pride. For the ruling class, that was one thing that they would not surrender. The common man should not have given a rat's ass about.

[avar]

The context to my comment is AnimalMuppet's hyperbolic reply that pacifism in the face of the enemy would somehow result in the destruction or enslavement of your whole society.

I'm pointing out that if say the French had surrendered to the Germans early in WWI there's no historical evidence that that would have been the case, and likely countless lives would have been saved.

The destruction of the state is not synonymous with the destruction of the people in it. Most wars only seek to abolish state power, not the people that make up those states.

[legulere]

> I'm pointing out that if say the French had surrendered to the Germans early in WWI

Or even earlier, France could have declared neutrality in regard to Serbia like Germany asked them to

[avar]

So many things would have changed for the better in that war if the various actors had drawn clear lines in the sand in advance.

E.g. the Germans believed the British wouldn't go to war with them over Belgium, the British knew Belgium was under threat in advance, but wouldn't draw a clear line in the sand telling the Germans that violating Belgium was an act of war.

Likely doing that would have kept Britain out of the war entirely since Germany would have attacked France directly.

[AnimalMuppet]

True. But, while you can make that claim about WWI, you can't about WWII. Worse, it might have appeared that you could have made that claim about WWII at the beginning of it...