I have restrained myself from entering this thread as I viewed it as a
rather naive effort of claiming that one could make war go away by
just being nice and not having an army.  It makes me wonder if they
still teach history in our schools.  I also wonder if the proponents
of no army are just doing this as a political message for the coming
election.  A few points:

Did anyone think of how many fewer millions of people would have been
killed in WWII if Chamberlain had taken a strong stand to Hitler
instead of relying on Hitler's assurance on non aggression.  We all
can take a lesson by watching the old newsreel of Chamberlain getting
out of the airplane and holding up a piece of paper and claiming that
because of his agreement with Hitler there will be "..peace in our
times..." Ha.

Hitler invaded Poland  and Russia not because they had armies but
because they had small armies that he could conquer.

Ask the people of Belgian and Luxembourg, both of which had minuscule
armies what their "peace" was during WWI as well as in WWII.

Lastly, if you are repulsed by war, shooting and hurting people, why
don't you get rid of the police.  They are just the communities's
equivalent of an army.  Just think how your lives would change if we
didn't have our police or as they are often referred to as "peace
officers." You can be sure it would find us all hunkering down in our
houses scared to go out because of all the thugs and robbers out
there.

We need our police and we need our army and, we need to stop the
Hitlers and el Quida BEFORE they do us harm.  The only point is that
firm and factual justification will only come when they write the
history, and if you are wrong, you probably won't be around to read
it.
John Bing



On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 12:32:26 -0400, you wrote:

>Dave,
>Thank you for correcting my misspelling of Liechtenstein. As I stated, peace
>is a way of life. To take one simple example, one can gently correct a
>misspelling, or even overlook it if the misspelling does not interfere with
>the core of the message, or one can make a snide remark. The first option
>will be helpful and lead to more standardized communications. The second
>option will not add or detract from the message, but will not serve as a
>motivator for negative remark. The third option presents a temptation of
>responding in-kind and potentially escalating the correspondence into an
>unpleasant exchange. I don't know how you intended your comment about
>Liechtenstein, but I choose to see it as a welcome corrective.
>
>The simple point that I tried to make with the Liechtenstein example is that
>without an army one is not going to be involved in any military
>misadventure-that is a guarantee. Furthermore, all income to the government
>also has the potential of being spent on productive needs of the society
>such as healthcare, support of culture, infrastructure, old age pensions,
>etc.
>
>Is there a causal relationship between not having an army and living in
>peace? In my view, yes-I have yet to hear of a people without an army that
>went to war. Your statement that it is easy to live in peace when you are
>small is not serious. Just think of Germany (size of Oregon) vs. the Soviet
>Union and France, North Vietnam vs. France and the US, or Israel and its
>neighbors. In fact, Israel is the world's smallest nuclear power. It's not
>the size of the country, it's the attitude.
>
>I agree with you that it makes no sense for Liechtenstein to have an army,
>but I feel that about countries in general. I have no idea how Liechtenstein
>fared in the World Wars. I do know that they did not lose 20 million dead in
>WWII as the Soviets did, they did not have concentration camps on its
>territory as in Poland, they were not murdered wholesale and they did not
>murder wholesale. In short, Liechtenstein's civilians suffered less than
>most neighbors with large armies, and they caused less suffering to others.
>
>Cheers, --PeaceNick
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Museum discussion list [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf
>Of David E. Haberstich
>Sent: Monday, July 19, 2004 2:23 AM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: Stonewalk
>
>In a message dated 7/16/2004 9:06:56 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
>[log in to unmask] writes:
>
><< Peace is not a goal-it is a way of life, of establishing relationships,
>of
> structuring culture. Lichtenstein has no army. Lichtenstein has had more
> years of peace than we exist as a country. Is there a connection? You bet.
>>>
>
>Nick, I'm no authority on Liechtenstein (except for knowing how to spell
>it),
>but I wonder if there's really any causal relationship between its lack of
>an
>army and its peaceful existence.  It's pretty easy to be peaceful when
>everyone else is bigger than you are.  Would there be any point in having an
>army
>even if they wanted one?  I also wonder how peaceful it was when it was part
>of
>the Holy Roman Empire.  How did it fare during the world wars?  (I ask
>because
>I have no idea.)
>
>David Haberstich
>
>

=========================================================
Important Subscriber Information:

The Museum-L FAQ file is located at http://www.finalchapter.com/museum-l-faq/ . You may obtain detailed information about the listserv commands by sending a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "help" (without the quotes).

If you decide to leave Museum-L, please send a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "Signoff Museum-L" (without the quotes).