Hi Guest Satchel,

Guess I have to disagree with this position.

"The Quaker point of view relies on an optimistic view of human nature."

The Quaker point of view is based on religious beliefs that
war is intrinsically wrong now and forever.

" Non-violence wasn't going to stop Hitler, and even if he was the end product of violence, by the time he was a threat to others, no amount of talking was going to change things. Ask Neville Chamberlain."

We don't know that non-violence wouldn't have stopped Hitler.
There is no evidence to support that it would or wouldn't since
it was never tried. Chamberlain was not a pacifist. He was
an official who believed that Hitler wasn't capable of what he
did.

There is a misconception about non-violence. It is often
considered to be an inactive or passive pursuit and quite the opposite is the real story. It involves a kind of non-violent military campaign as was applied in India and the Southern US requiring a strong discipline and thoughtful tactical approach. In In the case of these two memorable historical examples,
it worked when it was employed.

The problem was that when the official leaders of the movement
were assasinated, the strategy was given up as being ineffectual. This is because even amoung the non-violent participants there
was a level of scepticism that the movement could not be
implemented without the leaders. The lesson from this is that
non-violent resistance must be understood regardless of who is
in a leadership position.

Frank