I claim to be a pacifist, among many other things. I count among my heros The Dali Lama, Nelson Mandela, Lech Walesa, Andrei Sakharof, Ghandi, Martin Luther King, Hans and Sophie Schroll, Albert Schweitzer, Henry David Thoreau, Ralph Waldo Emerson, William Penn and many others who lived and often died for the cause of peace. I see Ghandi's successful revolt against the British as an example of how people can defeat a mighty power through a campaign of non violence. We see similar revolutions in places like South Africa, Czechoslovakia, East Germany, Russia and so on and so forth. We also see places like in China today, and in Isaeli occupied Palestine (where many are using non violence, and not terrorism though the Israeli media will not talk about those, only about the terrorists), Tibet, Burma and elsewhere where the people are using non violence to fight tyrenical regeims.

Non violence is a powerful tool if the campaign is conducted in the right way. The use of strikes, boycotts, civil disobedience and protest has been used effectively. But for this to happen several things need to happen. For starters the actions must be supported by a large number of people. Peace activists everywhere have always been good at communicating their ideas to large numbers of people. They need to be powerful speakers and effective organizers. Second the opponent they are fighting must have some notion of common decency.

To stress this point let us examine Ghandi's successful campaign to defeat the British. Imperial Britian was a nation bestowed with a genuine respect for rule of law. To be sure, the British rule was one of racism. British overlords saw the white race as being superior to all others and the British people and the British Culture (specifically the Anglo Saxon or rather Anglo norman and not Celtic Scottish, Welsh or Irish) as being superior to all other European peoples and cultures. None the less the British saw as their gift to the conquered Hindu and Muslim peoples of the Indian Subcontinent the British Common Law, the British sense of Law and Order, the British educational system and British Economic System based on a form of National Capitalism. It should be reminded that initially the colonization of India was overseen by a Private Corporation Chartered by the Crown, The British East India Company.

Ghandi was a Lawyer from India's highest Caste. He studied English Law and was well aware of the customs and the ways of the British Elite. Indeed, his first action in civil disobedience took place in British Ruled South Africa where he led fellow indians in defying racist laws there. Later, Ghandi cleverly used the British law to defeat the British.

Now a campaign of civil disobedience my work to defeat a nation like Britian but could it work against somebody like Hitler?

Let us consider the example of the World War 2 French. In the early stages of the second world war France declaired war against Germany for the invasion of Poland. After a long period of waiting, Hitler sent his blitzkreig agains the French. In very little time the French were overwhelmed. Thousands of French soldiers were taken prisoner and those who remained went to Britian to continue the fight.

The French Government was still in the hands of the leftist Popular Front under Socialist Paul Reynaud. The French had several options at hand. They could fight until their nation was in cinders (as the Polish had done before them), the could go into exile and leave their people at the mercy of the Germans, which was the approach taken by General Charles DeGaul, or they could make peace with the Germans and sign an armistace. The French Politicians chose the later. The armistace was signed by a French Marshal, Filip Petain. Petain was a man with a distinguished record. He defended France in the First World War and effectively prevented a rebellion and saved the Republic from anhilation. Now he was in charge. The Government of the new French State was led by Pierre Laval, a former socialist with liberal views.

The French State, which was what the shaddow government was called was based in Vichy (and was often called the Vichy regeim). It only consisted of about half of the nation though theoretically it was to rule the entire country. The remainder of France was occupied and was ruled by the German Military. Even the capital, Paris was under direct occupation.

In some respects Petain could be called a pacifist (though he did not claim to be so) because he did not wish to see further bloodshed. In the initial phases of its existance the regeim was popular. Many saw the regeim as being better that complete destruction. Even the Communists were in support of this, though their support changed after the USSR was invaded. The resistance to Nazi rule was at first led only by a few army officers with support from some socialists, anarchists and others. Charles DeGaul, himself was in Britian with his small army and was shunned by Churchill who refused to take him seriously.

As the fortunes of war changed and the Allies got the upper hand, Petain and Laval were soon in a bad situation. They were no longer peacemakers but now were collaborators. The Nazis were now interferring in all matters in the French State. After the country was liberated anyone who was connected with the French State was put on trial for collaboration and were often shot. Laval was executed and Petain was imprisoned.

Its really difficult to say if Petain was dealt with justly. To be sure, he was a supporter of many Fascist ideals. He opposed democracy and imprisoned many potential enemies. What is troubling thought is was it proper to make peace with Hitler? Can one make peace with a regeim which is that evil?

We can ask ourselves, could the Jews of Warsaw have resisted the Nazis with a campaign of civil disobedience? Remember that the Nazis had one goal for the Jews and that was their total anhiliation.

These are the questions we must ask ourselves.