Interventionism Revisited
As a teacher of the Holocaust I'm often faced with the ever-daunting question: With all the many super-powers throughout the world, and all those societies claiming to have moral values, why did nobody do anything to stop the Holocaust? This question, so deep and complex, will often explode the conversation in many different directions.
Many students immediately and excitedly (but inaccurately) claim that the Americans swept down like Batman to stop the wicked Nazis from hurting people.
I am then forced not only to point out that America's involvement in stopping the Holocaust was: a.
A tad on the late side.
b.
Self-serving and incidental.
The involvement of America in the war was an offshoot of being attacked by a foreign power (Pearl Harbor).
Stopping the Holocaust was an inevitable consequence of toppling Hitler, but certainly not one of the primary goals of the war.
To drive the matter home further, I'm forced to mention the St.
Louis, the boatload of refugees trying to escape Europe and likely death, only to be turned away at the border (!), sent back to face the unimaginable consequences.
And eventually the conversation will inevitably lead to the big question: Isolationism vs.
Interventionism.
This question has plagued me my entire thinking life.
For the uninitiated: Isolationism is an approach to governing a country which basically states that the country will not become militarily involved with another country's affairs.
The only time we should ever get involved is when the affairs from afar directly affect us.
Interventionism, in its strictest form, looks at your country as almost an international peace-keeping force, looking out for the good and welfare of the world community.
No injustice is off-limits.
And then there's the mass amount of grey in between.
What if a country invades one of our allies? Is this considered as having an impact on us, or not directly related to us enough to intervene? What if a country is taking actions that might someday come to our doorstep, even if those days might be many, many years from now, and are certainly not definite? Such as a country which threatens that we'll be next after they finish several of their conquests.
Or a country that's developing weapons that they might someday use on us.
Or a country that has a political viewpoint that, if taken to its extreme, will likely spiral into being something that will become our direct problem.
And then the infamous grey in question: What if a nation is conducting unspeakable atrocities? Their actions do not affects us directly, and will likely never affect us directly, but the shear thought of allowing them to continue rocks the foundations of our moral sensibilities.
For most of my life a moderate isolationist approach has been the one I've considered the most sensible.
After all, why should I get involved in other people's affairs when I have so many of my own to deal with? And once you get started, where do you draw the line? Shouldn't any true democracy believe in the rights of other countries to conduct their own affairs? How do we choose between different situations? How can we say once incident is worthy of interference and another not? And how in the world could I justify sending my county's soldiers into harms way for something that will never affect the safety of their own country? These questions plagued me.
But so did another.
An isolationist has no choice but to say that no other country should have gotten directly involved in stopping the Nazi Holocaust.
As a Jew, it's almost difficult to even write those words.
However, one might argue: The Holocaust is different, due to the extent of the atrocity.
And Pandora's Box is forever opened.
How can we judge between two different tragedies? The Nazis massacred six million Jews.
Others massacred a mere two million (like Pol Pot in Cambodia).
Is this a "lesser" tragedy? Do we wait until the two million mark before we get involved? Does that mean that we wait patiently until the Nazis cross a certain number before it reaches a level where involvement is obligatory? And do we look at the actions in Bosnia as completely insignificant because only a puny 200,000 souls perished at the hands of the Serbs? I think judging levels of atrocity is a slippery slope I wish not to venture.
Recently my viewpoint on interventionism has changed drastically.
One might say I've made the decision to lead a life that results in meaning, more than a life that can be logically explained.
What I'm trying to say is: Imagine the feeling of leaving this world knowing you were instrumental in the ending or preventing of a genocide? Isn't that a cause worth risking your life for? How many people throughout the history of the world would have sacrificed almost anything to have prevented the worst tragedies of the 20th century? After years of contemplation, I have come to the personal conclusion that a life that ends safely, risk free, with nothing to show for it, is far less meaningful than a life ended prematurely as a result of risks taken to make the world a better place.
Many students immediately and excitedly (but inaccurately) claim that the Americans swept down like Batman to stop the wicked Nazis from hurting people.
I am then forced not only to point out that America's involvement in stopping the Holocaust was: a.
A tad on the late side.
b.
Self-serving and incidental.
The involvement of America in the war was an offshoot of being attacked by a foreign power (Pearl Harbor).
Stopping the Holocaust was an inevitable consequence of toppling Hitler, but certainly not one of the primary goals of the war.
To drive the matter home further, I'm forced to mention the St.
Louis, the boatload of refugees trying to escape Europe and likely death, only to be turned away at the border (!), sent back to face the unimaginable consequences.
And eventually the conversation will inevitably lead to the big question: Isolationism vs.
Interventionism.
This question has plagued me my entire thinking life.
For the uninitiated: Isolationism is an approach to governing a country which basically states that the country will not become militarily involved with another country's affairs.
The only time we should ever get involved is when the affairs from afar directly affect us.
Interventionism, in its strictest form, looks at your country as almost an international peace-keeping force, looking out for the good and welfare of the world community.
No injustice is off-limits.
And then there's the mass amount of grey in between.
What if a country invades one of our allies? Is this considered as having an impact on us, or not directly related to us enough to intervene? What if a country is taking actions that might someday come to our doorstep, even if those days might be many, many years from now, and are certainly not definite? Such as a country which threatens that we'll be next after they finish several of their conquests.
Or a country that's developing weapons that they might someday use on us.
Or a country that has a political viewpoint that, if taken to its extreme, will likely spiral into being something that will become our direct problem.
And then the infamous grey in question: What if a nation is conducting unspeakable atrocities? Their actions do not affects us directly, and will likely never affect us directly, but the shear thought of allowing them to continue rocks the foundations of our moral sensibilities.
For most of my life a moderate isolationist approach has been the one I've considered the most sensible.
After all, why should I get involved in other people's affairs when I have so many of my own to deal with? And once you get started, where do you draw the line? Shouldn't any true democracy believe in the rights of other countries to conduct their own affairs? How do we choose between different situations? How can we say once incident is worthy of interference and another not? And how in the world could I justify sending my county's soldiers into harms way for something that will never affect the safety of their own country? These questions plagued me.
But so did another.
An isolationist has no choice but to say that no other country should have gotten directly involved in stopping the Nazi Holocaust.
As a Jew, it's almost difficult to even write those words.
However, one might argue: The Holocaust is different, due to the extent of the atrocity.
And Pandora's Box is forever opened.
How can we judge between two different tragedies? The Nazis massacred six million Jews.
Others massacred a mere two million (like Pol Pot in Cambodia).
Is this a "lesser" tragedy? Do we wait until the two million mark before we get involved? Does that mean that we wait patiently until the Nazis cross a certain number before it reaches a level where involvement is obligatory? And do we look at the actions in Bosnia as completely insignificant because only a puny 200,000 souls perished at the hands of the Serbs? I think judging levels of atrocity is a slippery slope I wish not to venture.
Recently my viewpoint on interventionism has changed drastically.
One might say I've made the decision to lead a life that results in meaning, more than a life that can be logically explained.
What I'm trying to say is: Imagine the feeling of leaving this world knowing you were instrumental in the ending or preventing of a genocide? Isn't that a cause worth risking your life for? How many people throughout the history of the world would have sacrificed almost anything to have prevented the worst tragedies of the 20th century? After years of contemplation, I have come to the personal conclusion that a life that ends safely, risk free, with nothing to show for it, is far less meaningful than a life ended prematurely as a result of risks taken to make the world a better place.
Source...