Brave people of principle who did not want to fight in a pointless imperialist war.

I dare say some of them were. Most of them, however, didn't give a damn about the politics or justification and were rather more concerned about not being shot at.

Either way they are just a footnote in history and the greater focus should be on those who went off to fight for King and Country against a military worshipping expansionist dictatorship hell bent on invading its peaceful neighbours (and some of them were) and carrying out ethnic cleansing.

Thank you for that unbiased summary, Mr. Gove.

It is no more biased than your own.

Octavious, it's not just about not being shot at - a good portion of them ended up in non-combatant roles that were still pretty dangerous, and the government did try to make sure that people weren't just doing it out of cowardice.

The exception, of course, was Québec, where apparently it was really easy to get conscientious objector status because the French Canadians weren't crazy about fighting for King and Country.

Let me reword that: I meant it wasn't mostly about being shot at. Ignore the word "just", since you didn't actually say that.

"Most of them, however, didn't give a damn about the politics or justification and were rather more concerned about not being shot at."

That's a reasonable concern...

"Most of them, however, didn't give a damn about the politics or justification and were rather more concerned about not being shot at."

Source?

Either way they are just a footnote in history and the greater focus should be on those who went off to fight for a military worshipping expansionist dictatorship hell bent on invading its peaceful neighbours (and some of them were) and carrying out ethnic cleansing
against a military worshipping expansionist dictatorship hell bent on invading its peaceful neighbours (and some of them were) and carrying out ethnic cleansing.

Oh wait, are you going to tell me that colonialism wasn't the systematic rape and murder and pillage of half the globe for imperialist luxuries like gold palaces and banquets and horse-drawn carriages for the upper classes?

Before you even try to think of a rebuttal: tea, coffee, spices, cotton, exotic animals, ivory, slaves, tobacco, gold, precious jewels, sugar, all luxury goods brought in through the subjugation of various people, some barbaric, some peaceful, for the profits of an elite class of Europe. So yeah, not going to war for that wasn't cowardly at all, and it is offensive for you to say so. If anything it shows more courage than following the crowd, particularly with the kind of trials and punishments visited upon them.

I don't think it's a particularly brave thing to do, but it was definitely the right thing to do IMO.

@ SYnapse

There was nothing systematic about colonialism. The motivations behind Empire were highly complex with much opportunism and random chance playing their part. There were plenty of people out to make money without worrying too much about the impact on other people, there were plenty of people working for the greater good of the poor folk abroad (a similar sort of person to Thucy, but with a less developed sense of what might work), and there was the huge motivation of simple fear of European rivals. Countless other factors all conspired in the creation of Empires.

Still, you have little respect for the truth or even what we write (as evidenced by the fact you invented me calling them cowards and then took offense at your own invention!) so there's really no point in discussing it with you.

@ bo
"That's a reasonable concern... "

I never said it wasn't. I see little wrong with taking such an attitude. I also see little to celebrate about it either. The people who did go to fight for the country against a European dictatorship on the warpath, on the other hand, are worthy of great respect.

I ask anyone to answer this seriously... If today an agressive military power (lets be topical and say Russia) invaded Belguim would you actively support your own nation doing nothing?

Yes.

And the principle is that the Russians would also support doing nothing.

You're in a car driving at another car. I don't believe in crashing into the other car - you think that's equivalent to stopping and letting him crash into you. I believe in the other stuff - beeping your horn? Telling him to get out of the way? Trying to avoid the other car? That's the equivalent of diplomacy and saving lives through whatever means. I don't think that warmongering even in the quasi-realism sense that you're talking about making it seem like everyone is destined to bellum omnium contra omnes.

And let's face it, even if I'm wrong you HAVE to believe my opinion, because yours isn't worth living for.

You don't think that the British Empire was a dictatorship? Seriously? I don't know what you call monarchies in East Finchley or wherever you're from, but seriously?

"And the principle is that the Russians would also support doing nothing."

But you don't get to choose whether another country is rational. Only your own. Manifestly, sometimes countries unreasonably invade other countries and diplomacy is pointless. Europe spent the thirties losing countless future lives in order to carefully test your approach.

Anyway you didn't answer Octavious's question. He asked if Belgium *already were* invaded, which means Russia already decided against doing nothing.

Let's clarify - I'd never support a war, in any circumstances. So let's get the straw man/Godwin arguments out of the way. Not even against the Holocaust. The only exception I would say is an alien invasion, but I won't support people killing people as it's not Right (although of course it is justifiable).

This just became interesting.

"as it's not Right (although of course it is justifiable). "

I have very high confidence that you're confused about the meaning of one of these words.

I'm discussing Kant, the right is prior to the good.

Killing somebody is bad, but you say, what of killing someone to save a million lives? Then it is good, but it is not right. I do not support killing someone to save a million lives, of course it is justifiable (I would not issue guilt on such a person) but the quality of the act is wrong and remains wrong. I would probably kill someone trying to kill my family as anyone would but it's not right, as it's not right to kill somebody.

In terms of war as I said it's a kind of horrid realist perspective you're presenting. What if other countries try to kill everybody? Well if they think like me they won't. So it's your frame of mind that presents the problem, not mine, and I will not change.

War is wrong it's not a difficult concept to grasp.

In other words, your defense plan is, don't have enemies who disagree with you.

The point stands that if everyone adopts my way of thinking there will be no war, and if everyone adopts Octavious's there will be war, therefore mine is the better perspective. EVEN IF it currently sucks in realist international relations, that's a naturalistic fallacy isn't it? Just because things are a certain way doesn't mean they should remain so.

My defense plan is don't have countries. Russia attacks Belgium sure, but if everywhere was called Russia (bear with me here) there would be only civil wars, and a universal system of policing designed to try and prevent those. As everyone would have the same government, there wouldn't be this competition that you see now. Before you say that competition is natural, yes of course it is, but stable democracies don't have civil wars very often - wars are driven by differences in race, nationality, religion etc. States that have a very singular populace do not have such wars, so the vision is for a world-state where such a plethora of races and cultures have intermingled there is only one kind of world-culture and there are no need for wars.

Idealistic of course, but as said before if you're not going to live in hope of a better world then there's no point resisting the evil empires anyway. That's what caused all the wars after all, hope for something better.

@SYnapse,

"The point stands that if everyone adopts my way of thinking there will be no war, and if everyone adopts Octavious's there will be war, therefore mine is the better perspective."

Actually, there is an important logical gap here. There is a missing premise, namely, "There is a peaceful way to reach a point where everybody has SYnapse's perspective."

But there's not. So yours is not a better perspective in this, the real world. Particularly because, if the good people adopt your perpsective, and the rest don't, then the bad people take over and utterly oppress the bad. So while we're being consequentialist (which we apparently are now?), let's go ahead and not let those 6 million Jews be slaughtered, mmmk?

So you're right. If everywhere is called Nazi Germany, then there wouldn't be wars between countries. And there might not be too many people slaughtered anymore, since all the Jews, principled Christians, homosexuals, Muslims, etc. might already have been killed off. But I admit that this seems like a worse world. If we're being consequentialist, then I'm going to say we should not live in the world where millions of people are slaughtered by their own state, and the rest live in permanent oppression. And if we're being moral objectivists, I'm going to say that right is toothless unless we can stand up and stop those who are perpetrating evil, and that their right to life ends when they flip the switch on the gas chambers.

"and utterly oppress the good," I of course meant.

There has to be a point where doing the right makes life no longer worth living.

If dropping nuclear bombs upon half of the globe is the right thing to do, it is no longer the right thing to do because of the sheer moral consequences of the action. In such situations, there is no good, there is only the nihilism of the scenario.

What the Nazis did was wrong, so equally was going to war with them. We're arguing on different terms because you believe that there is a correct thing to do in certain circumstances, whereas I believe there are good things and bad things to do regardless of circumstances.

What Octavious seems to be presenting is an international "stand your ground" law which results in mass bloodshed. I can't advocate that, even if you can provide very rational explanations for doing so in a certain situation. If someone is shooting at you, it isn't Right to shoot them, even though it is blameless to do so. The right thing is for that person not to be shooting at you right? Hence sometimes the reality of the situation gets rid of the right thing. Russia invading Belgium isn't a right thing, and triggers a whole load of not-right consequences. That doesn't make attacking Russians right.

" There has to be a point where doing the right makes life no longer worth living.

"If dropping nuclear bombs upon half of the globe is the right thing to do, it is no longer the right thing to do because of the sheer moral consequences of the action."

That's a bridge we'd have to cross if we came to it; but we're far more likely to come to it with you at the helm than Octavious.

Perhaps you're right and war is the natural state of things. In that case why bother fighting anyway? Life is a waste of time.

I have reached a pit in both of our debates and now I don't have any energy to continue, I just feel again as though my existence is not necessary or wanted and that people will continue to do their stupid thing regardless of what hopes of a better world I have.

I guess the question you need to ask is whether Octavious, deep down, only wishes to pursue his agenda because of the current state of the world, and whether deep down he really wants a peaceful world? Because I kinda don't think he does.

Anyway I'm out